Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    (Easy for me to say...) I wouldn't have reacted the way you did, Bubba.
    (Guessing...) I would have responded the way I do when dogs playing
    guard-the-cave come barking at me: I'd back away, talking in soothing 
    tones, not antagonizing my attackers, but protecting myself.
    
    One important difference between us, I think, is that I have no
    "violence skills." I've only seen the twisted-arm trick on TV, and not
    much of that (TV-phobe here). My only experience with a sex-impairing
    kick was when someone just missed ME (in 8th grade, my last physical
    fight). I think your military experience has prepared you to respond as
    you did. I might even guess that you did it on semi-automatic: the arm
    is extended; you reach, grasp, and turn, etc. I don't have those
    reflexes.
    
    I'm not really prepared to decide whether your respond was _justified_.
    You put them off politely. They insisted aggressively, physically. Some
    level of response was justified, if only to protect yourself.
    
    More generally: IMO, violence is the basis for civilization. Behind
    every law is the threat of physical incarceration or worse. When a
    child hears "Or else!" that probably translates into some physical
    sanction, e.g. incarceration ("Go to your room!") or worse (spanking).
    As adults, there are intermediary levels of threat: no raise, no job,
    no money to pay the mortgage, no place to live or food, incarceration.
    
    We in the U.S.A. characterize ourselves as the Cradle of Freedom, and
    we jail a larger proportion of our population than any countries except
    South Africa and the Soviet Union. Perhaps this is a testimonial to our
    benevolence: we jail criminals instead of cutting off their hands or
    executing them. We also shoot about 10,000 people per year, in part
    because of our inalienable right to bear arms (no rat-holing, please).
    I think the American Thesis is that Violence and Freedom go
    hand-in-hand.

    Justified? You bet. People who try to force their opinions and them
    selves on people should be resisted. Force is not the action of first
    resort but you tried to be reasonable. Some might say that there were
    other things you could have done. And they'd be right. But that is not
    the same as you being wrong. When they got physical they gave you the
    right to respond in kind. If you had responded otherwise perhaps
    neither they nor you would have been hurt. However, they would not
    have learned anything. Now at least we can hope that they learned that
    their using force of others can have negative consequences. Perhaps
    they'll be more polite the next time. As I see it you helped them in
    the long run.

    			Alfred

re .1

>    We in the U.S.A. characterize ourselves as the Cradle of Freedom, and
>    we jail a larger proportion of our population than any countries except
>    South Africa and the Soviet Union. Perhaps this is a testimonial to our

Correction: since both the USSR and SA have released so many political 
prisoners the USA has been No. 1 in jailing its own citizens for some months.

    
    
    Way to kick butt, Bubba!!!!!!!
    
    
    They deserved it, and you reacted out of instinct to protect yourself. 
    That is what Humans do. They react with emotion and instinct and take
    whatever steps are necessary, and within their means, to survive. 
    
    There is a time for diplomacy. There is a time to kick butt!!!
    Good choice!!!!!
    
    Cat  (but of course...!) 

    As long as you weren't hurt I suppose it worked out O.K in the end.
    I know of a guy who tackled a gang who were giving another guy a hard
    time.
    
    One would have supposed that being a former member of the French
    Foreign Legion and in reasonable shape he could have put 3 teenagers
    away.
    
    Wrong.
    
    He ended up with a knife to his side and was kicked in the head and
    sides while he lay on the ground suffering from the knife wound.
    
    The situation is even more dangerous in the U.S where hand guns appear
    to be commonplace.They are illegal here.
    
    If at all possible,I would advocate running as fast as possible away
    from those type of people.My fathers advice on fighting was to hit hard
    and suddenly with no hesitation. The only time I tried it it worked and 
    I was left in peace in school after the incident.The street with its
    unexpected knives and other weapons is another matter entirely.
    
    
    

    
    For someone who has a self-proclaimed "aversion to violence",
    your words and actions are inconsistent
    
    From your rather graphic depiction, it almost seems as if you
    enjoyed yourself, and trying to make the incident more interesting
    to readers
    
    "... introduced his hand to the upper portion of his back ..."
    "... ate some concrete..."
    "... sex is going to be quite painful..."
    
    I do not find the story all that interesting, MGM might
    
    As for being 'justified' ... Why ask ?
    You have already rationalized that assault is the appropriate
    response to harassment
    
    My question is , Are you really trying to reslove anything or
    are you just taking a poll to bask in support ?
    
    christopher

    I have a deliberately chosen, ethical aversion to _initiating_
    violence. I have no problem with self-defense. Retaliation
    _after_ the fact is a matter best left to the police and
    courts, in the interests of objectivity.

    The min these men touched you, they gave up any civil liberities. Life,
    liberty, the persuit of happier days.
    
    You were working in self defence. And, yes, we live in a violent world,
    we have always. Its more blown up now because the world is much closer. 
    
    I am shure it bothers you more than the next guy. For your a
    Marrine. A man who knows how to take a life in a blink of an eye. And
    these were kids. Still wet behind the ear, and problably haven't gotten
    laid till you laid one out on the side walk. Well versed in martial
    arts too? Knowing that martial arts can be just as much a wepon as a
    gun or a knife?
    

.0> That's all I read ... I wadded it up and tossed it ... continued walking.

Here is where you threw down the gauntlet...

.0> My Doppler radar is  fully functional, and, before I know it I can hear 
    footsteps coming toward me.

RED ALERT!  RED ALERT!  Full Shields Up!  Arm Phasers and Photon torpedos!

.0> "Gentlemen?"

Hailing frequencies!

.0> "We were wondering why you trashed the paper"

Our sensors indicate you really don't want to "Boldly go where no one has gone
before".

.0> "I'm really not interested, thank you.  Is there anything else that I can 
     do for you?"

FIRE PHASERS!

.0> "At least read it! <voice rising>".

This is your last chance...

.0> A hand is thrust toward me with another flier in it.
.0> I step back, one step, "No thank you, I'm really not interested".

So you didn't like the phaser, try this torpedo...
.
.
.

.0> What do you think?  Justified?

I think you were very lucky you didn't get "blown away" (no pun intended)...

    Let us change the senario just slightly to something that has been
    talked about here recently:
    
    Suppose it was a pregnant woman and they tried to 'pat her stomach' or
    insert the leaflet 'by her baby?' Would she have been justified?
    Touching her stomach is/was considered inappropiate behavior by many
    in a recent note.
    
    Where do you draw the line?

    RE: -1
    
    A pregnant woman at the Blitmore hotel in LA, going for a walk
    well after sunset ?
    
    I suppose that she enraged them by tossing their paper aside also ?
    
    and that act in itself caused them to follow her and harass her ?
    
    and she responded with a wrist-lock on one guy and a front kick to
    another ?
    
    This is all believable to you ?
    
    Incredible
    
    christopher

    
    re .10
    
    if it had been a pregnant woman out walking in the dark in a bad area
    of town, and she found herself being physically harrassed by these
    thugs, then I'd hope that she'd pull out her .357 and resolve their
    little power trip right there. 
    
    

    
    I find it most interesting that those who were bitching about 
    violence against *them* that that it was ok to use
    violence/intimidation to forward *their* views.
    
    This is the one thing that bothers me most about many/most of
    these *equal rights* organizations.
    
    fred();

A few questions for you, Jerry- as a California resident, are you aware of
which prominent groups are picketing Governor Wilson because of legislation
he vetoed about 6 weeks ago?  Was there just the slightest bit of recognition
in your mind that these protestors might be members of said group?  Did this
recognition affect your responses in any way; for example, in crumpling their
leaflet immediately, within their presence (and I wonder, did you dispose of
it in a public receptacle or did you toss it in the gutter?  You didn't say.)
And was Governor Wilson in fact speaking at the Biltmore that night?  Had you
gone to hear him speak?  Was your presence there that evening to any extant
political and were you thus philosophically opposed to these protestors even
before you met them?

I wonder if your reflection upon these questions might reveal to yourself
(and to us, if you care to share the answers) any hidden motives behind this
sorry incident of violence.  Don't get me wrong; I think these individuals
accosted you in an inappropriate manner, and should have left you alone after
they'd offered you the first leaflet.  But I wonder if they were...solely the
ones at fault.  Certainly they paid for it.

DougO

    Wow!
    
    I think that is a despicable, scurrilous entry!  (even if -nay,
    particularly if- whatever it intimates is accurate.
    
    Why the hell don't you just tell us which prominent groups are
    picketing Governor Wilson because of legislation he vetoed about 6
    weeks ago?
    
    I thought only women talked so elliptically.

    
    
    yeah, .14..what are you implying?
    z

    
    Local -102- No other session(s) active
    Local -012- MLO session 1 resumed
    
    
    Local -102- No other session(s) active
    Local -012- MLO session 1 resumed
    
    re: 14
    
    Regardless of what Bubba's political views regarding this Gov.
    are, if somebody hands him a leaflet that he has no use for
    or desire to read, why should he be expected to hang onto it?
    If it were me, I'd have also thrown it away.  It doesnt give
    the petitioners any more rights to accost me than it does for
    me to approach them, tell them I disagree with them and throw
    all remaining pamphlets away.  I agree with Bubba and it was
    obvious from his account (to me anyway) that he did attempt to
    deal with this non-violently, but if you are a stranger and you
    touch me as it to detain, force something upon me, I'm gonna
    hit you.
    
    Christine

    
    I think DougO might be implying homophobia.
    If I'm wrong, please do correct me.
    
    							Hank

.14> Don't get me wrong; I think these individuals accosted you in
.14> an inappropriate manner, and should have left you alone after
.14> they'd offered you the first leaflet.

Don't get me wrong either ... but ... if these individuals "accosted"
me in an "inappropriate manner" and "should have left you alone"  what
bearing, WHAT-SO-EVER, do your questions have on the subject at hand?

What's important here:  (1) the nature of the flier, (2) the group that
was passing them out ... (3) <fill in the blank>?

NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON (in 140 replies in SOAPBOX) has even come CLOSE to
inquiring as to the physical characteristics of those who so warmly and
compassionately approached me.  Does *that* have any bearing on this?

The streets of Los Angeles is no place for a valuing differences seminar.

.14> But I wonder if they were...solely the ones at fault.  Certainly
.14> they paid for it.

Tell me, in no uncertain terms, just HOW I was to know that there was
absolutely NO weapons involved?  How did I know that one of them was
not carrying a knife or a gun?  For the simple reason that it's a "political"
group who's currently in the news I'm supposed to make all kind of 
*assumptions* and hold a valuing differences seminar there on the streets
at 10:00 PM at night?  Wrong, big time wrong.  You can bet your life on
it, but, I'm *not*.

Now, you tell me PRECISELY what bearing the "issues" have on the
action ... I'll answer your questions.

Bubba

    IMO- I dont see how Jerry solicited this reaction.  Hell, anytime
    there is a demonstration of sorts, you have two opposing sides who
    generally could care less about the other's point of view.  I still
    agree with Jerry-10 pm at night is not the time to hold a valuing
    differences seminar and I would have reacted the same if I had the
    same self defense skills as Jerry regardless of the individual's
    gender, politics, race, whatever.  Don't touch me once I've rejected
    what you have to say/distribute if I've politely turned you down.
    
    CK

But you see, the scurrilous comments in .14 intimate that Jerry 'solicited'
the reaction of the pamphleteers, to give himself the opportunity to act out on
them.

p.s.

In addition to being scurrilous, those comments in .14 are cowardly. I
guessed what they might be implying, but to put those guesses in writing
-in my opinion- provides that coward just what he wants

		airtime with deniability

Herb, as Mark told you in another note, give it a rest.  You haven't got a clue.

Folks, if Jerry did know the answers to those questions, then the possibility
arises that he was out looking for trouble.  I don't ask him to admit it.  He
may not want to even consider it, even in his own mind...I agree its a pretty
ugly scenario.  Now, he has asked me a few...

> what bearing, WHAT-SO-EVER, do your questions have on the subject at hand?

I'm trying to determine if you were looking for trouble; if you were aware
that groups were picketting ALL of Wilson's appearances; and if you were in
fact AT one of Wilson's appearances could you have predicted that you in all
probability would encounter protestors.  Certainly I am aware of such.  As an
informed and opinionated Californian, I expect the same of you.  Does that 
have bearing on the matter?  I think so.

> NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON (in 140 replies in SOAPBOX) has even come CLOSE to
> inquiring as to the physical characteristics of those who so warmly and
> compassionately approached me.  Does *that* have any bearing on this?

'physical characteristics'?  No, the group I had in mind is political.

> Tell me, in no uncertain terms, just HOW I was to know that there was
> absolutely NO weapons involved?  How did I know that one of them was
> not carrying a knife or a gun?

Nope, you couldn't have known these things.  And, after the 'incident' had
begun and they took inappropriate actions with respect to your person, I
don't think your reactions were indefensible.  But I was asking about what
you knew about that night at and around the Biltmore *before* the incident.

DougO

    
    
    Perhaps what Doug is saying is something along these lines:  Might it
    be the case, Jerry, that had you not felt so strongly against the
    individuals handing out the leaflets you might have reacted
    differently.  For example:  had they been young ROTC'ers who were
    soliciting support for their continued presence on their campus would
    you have handled the situation in a similar manner?
    
    And, by the way, I'll ask:  how 'bout describing the physical
    characteristics of the victims.
    
    	GJD

    
    
    ...notes collision..........
    
    	GJD

    Are we reading more into what happend that what happened guys? 

    
    
    Just asking questions!  
    
    	GJD

>    A pregnant woman at the Blitmore hotel in LA, going for a walk
>    well after sunset ?
>    I suppose that she enraged them by tossing their paper aside also ?
>    and that act in itself caused them to follow her and harass her ?
>    and she responded with a wrist-lock on one guy and a front kick to
>    another ?
>    This is all believable to you ?
>    Incredible
    
    Why would this being believable to someone seem incredible? Some
    of the best martial artists I know are women. They are not to be
    triffled with and they go where and when they choose. As is their
    right as much as it is any mans.
    
    			Alfred

    Maybe the message is:
    
    "Don't stuff your politics down someone shirt, or your gonna get your
    gonna eat cement".
    
    
    So what if he takes one from the ROTC? Or treats them differnetly?
    Should he treat all folks of political deminor the same. Make the
    ROTC's eat as much of the good California cement as anyone else?  

>NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON (in 140 replies in SOAPBOX) has even come CLOSE to
>inquiring as to the physical characteristics of those who so warmly and
>compassionately approached me.  Does *that* have any bearing on this?

    Must be they all know you. I wouldn't ask because I know you (I think) 
    well enough to know that you would respond very much the same
    regardless of the thugs race, religion, or politics. Though I'd also
    assume based on knowing you that the thugs were male. Southern
    gentleman that you are.

    		Alfred

 Frankly Doug, even though I can see where you are headed with this line of
questioning, I don't necessarily think it has m,uch if anything to do with
the appropriateness of Jerry's reaction.

 Even if Jerry said "<expletive> you" in reaction to the pamphleteering,
that does not justify their following him down the street and accosting him.
To do so exposes one to the likely physical reprisals that they indeed faced.
We're talking about after dark in LA here. You just don't start hassling 
random people; he could just as easily have had a weapon and done serious 
damage.

 As for Jerry's response, for me it is impossible to say whether his reaction
was justified. First of all, I wasn't there. The description of any event
lacks the detail that one would get by being there. My personal reaction is
that I believe I would have forcefully broken contact with the person, and told
him to buzz off. If further battery occurred, I may have decided to take Jerry's
approach; I may instead have decided to bolt. Fight or flight response is
a particularly delicate thing; so many little things may influence such
a split second decision. I cannot fault Jerry for his reaction, because even
though it may seem out of proportion to the level of threat he was facing,
out of context it is fruitless to determine where his mind was at. It's 
certainly possible that some left coast noter could be telling us about
Jerry's untimely demise at the hands of the accosting pamphleteer. 

 Part of my response is based upon the premise that Jerry did not predetermine
that he was going to attack people of a certain flavor should he have the
opportunity. Obviously, if you do not share this premise, your mileage may
in fact, differ.

 the Doctah

    Mark:
    I think i see where he is headed as well, and that is why I have
    responded as I have.
    
    Olson

    You are suggesting/ intimating that Jerry had some 'unwholesome' reason
    for looking for trouble.
    You are also suggesting/intimating that Jerry in fact precipitated the
    trouble by something in his mannerisms.

    If you have something concrete to intimate; give Jerry the courtesy of
    stating what it is.
    If you are just grasping at straws, or just trying to present a
    PLAUSIBLE scenario then say so, and find a better way of
    saying it. A way that doesn't intimate that Jerry's motives are either
    suspect OR EVEN RELEVANT.

    Until such time as you chose to do one of the above, or something else
    reasonable I will continue to believe that the statements in .14 are
    both scurrilous and cowardly.

Until Jerry decides whether or not he wants to pursue this with me, I'll
decline to comment further.  Thanks, Mark, but pursuing this one is up to him.

DougO

    (In looking down bifocals voice:) I think ALL the boys were VERY VERY
    RUDE.  
    
    What I see is a bunch of guys all insisting on escalating things 'til
    someone backs down. The writer escalated more, that's all.
    
    Is that "justified"?  None of it is "justified", but someone's face
    being smashed into the pavement and someone else getting kicked in the
    groin seems like pretty absurd results to derive from leaflets being
    handed out. I don't know; I wouldn't want it on my conscience, but then
    I don't want most of the things which actually ARE on my conscience...
    
    Anyway, I don't think it matters that much whether our hero would've
    similarly tossed away a leaflet headlined "Ted Kennedy is a <mumble>!"
    The point is he didn't want this one. (As far as I follow the news,
    Gov. Wilson has p.ed o. gays and immigrants, but the story doesn't
    indicate which group the leafleteers might've belonged to. I don't see
    that it matters, except as a possible explanation of why it didn't
    bother him; if he says that has nothing to do with it, 'sOK by me, I'd
    just as soon he overreacted randomly...)
    
    So what would I do?  Well, I usually take leaflets and say "Thank you." 
    The really obnoxious ones I write letters on the back of and send to
    friends for their amusement.  I've recently developed a bad habit of
    telling free-personality-testers "L. Ron Hubbard is a lousy writer" but
    that's about it. Oh and then there were the Cambridge
    fundamentalists...
    
    Ray

    
    
    
    re DougO
    
    I guess what I thouth I heard you say is
    
    
    Jerry is Homophobic.
    Jerry went out there looking for trouble, possibly hoping for the
    opportunity of 'gay bashing' and got his wish. 
    
    
    The only thing I got out of the basebote besides Jerry being assaulted
    and defending himself, is that he littered......
    
    
    
    
    
    

    .36 
    
    Is Jerry homophobic or is it you who is heterophobic?

    What I heard DougO do was try to FIND OUT if homophobia or
    send-'em-back-where-they-came-from had anything to do with it or not. 
    (That's why it wasn't an accusation.) 
    
    But I admit his approach seems a little over-subtle given the context.
    
    Ray

Well, Cathy, I'd be interested to see where I said anything like

>     Jerry is Homophobic.

'cause I don't think so, and I can't believe I'd have said that.
Perhaps you should reread more carefully the notes that I wrote.

>     Jerry went out there looking for trouble,

I've said that I think this may be the case and that even Jerry may have
trouble admitting this to himself.  To help him figure that out, I asked
some questions, the answers to which I think most informed California
residents would know.  And that's all; I want him to think about those
questions.

DougO

    If you had wanted HIM to think about those questions then you could
    have mailed those questions to him privately.
    By stating them publicly you are inviting everybody to 'peer into his
    dark and evil' psyche without QUITE knowing...

    		a) what we are looking for (unless we are
                   Californian, clever, cynical, or diabolical)
    		b) why we should be looking for it.

    <I'd be interested to see where I said anything like ...
    
    That is what is so beautiful about what I have in the past described as
    a typically female way of communicating. 
    It's called accusing without accusing, or insulting without insulting.
    And now you can 'quite honestly' flutter your eyelashes and protest
    
    I _didn't_ saaaay thaaaat

aw, Herb!  "typically female', coming from you I take it that's supposed
to be an insult; for what its worth, when you and/or Cathy read more into
my words than I put there you betray only your own inadequate reading skills.
If Jerry didn't want speculation upon this incident then he bloody well didn't
have to put a note in.  But careful when you issue phrases like 'typically
female' and 'fluttering lashes' as insults; the typical females with who
I am familiar might not appreciate your open misogyny.

DougO

    I am making a very serious statement. 
    
    The statement is that there is a way of communicating that is much more
    typically female than male. A way of insinuating things without saying
    them. Of being malicious without quite using malicious words, of
    inviting certain conclusions without specifically asserting them.
    
    And of doing all of the above with impunity because they never quite
    'do' it.

Tell you what, Herb; you master the malicious insult first, then come back
and tell us how not to do it.  My questions to Jerry were in this open forum
because in my eyes he came here looking for an endorsement of his violent
reaction which I am not prepared to give him without knowing one heck of a
lot more about the situation than he saw fit to tell us.  He answers the
questions, I'll decide whether or not he was merely *ignorant* of the situation
in California politics, which I don't expect, or something else.  But your
'typically female' aspersions at the time-honored genre of malicious insults
is a mark of your dislike of women and a mark of your lack of knowledge of
every effective male satirist.  Sorry, when and if I choose to insult Jerry
it'll be quite a bit more obvious.  I haven't chosen to do so.

DougO

    Y'all just be cool ... when I get home I'll key in a reply ... for the
    moment, I've got work to do.
    
    Bubba

    
    
    
    re .37
    
    
    Geez, and I thought I had this notes-speak down pat...
    I THOUGHT that when I THOUGHT I understood what you said to be XYZ,
    then the correct way to ask for clarification was to say
    "I thought I heard you say...is that what you meant to say"...
    
    perhaps I didn't use enough "I thoughts, you saids". 
    
    *I* didn't say that Jerry was Homophobic...I HATE that word. 
    I asked DougO to clarify his note as that is what I read him as saying.
    
    HOW THE HELL DO YOU GET ME AS HETEROPHOBIC OUT OF THAT??!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    

    I see nothing wrong with your actions they were clearly out of line
    trying to force you to read the handbill.
    
    Seems to me the reason they are getting beat up is they don't know how
    to take "not interested" for an answer.
    
    -j
    

    re.6
    A person can be opposed to violence and still defend himself
    I have an aversion to violence but at the same time I have no
    desire to become a victim. Self defense against an attacker is 
    not what I would call a violent attack unless the "victim" continues
    to beat the "attacker" after submission.
    
    Military training I'm sure played a role here also Jerry's responce
    would have been differently played had he not been trained for
    self defense.
    
    -j

.14> A few questions for you, Jerry...

Well, to be truthful with you (and I do my best at that) ...I was absolutely
flabbergasted at the questions.  *I* viewed them in much the same way that
others have voiced.  What ... in the name of God ... does politics have to do
with this incident?  Why do visions of 1933 Germany come to mind?

.14> as a California resident, are you aware of which prominent groups are
.14> picketing Governor Wilson because of legislation he vetoed about 6
.14> weeks ago?

I know the Governor is being picketed.  I have no earthly idea as to which
"prominent groups" are involved.

.14> Was there just the slightest bit of recognition in your mind that these
.14> protestors might be members of said group?

I would suspect, from the "banner" that they represented some sort of
group that didn't particularly care for Wilson.

.14> Did this recognition affect your responses in any way; for example, in
.14> crumpling their leaflet immediately, within their presence...

Yes, it did affect my response.  It heightened my *lack* of interest.

"...within their presence..."?  They handed me the flier - I kept walking,
did I know if they were continuing to watch me?  Did I care if they were
watching me?  No.

.14> (and I wonder, did you dispose of it in a public receptacle or did
.14> you toss it in the gutter?  You didn't say.)

Incredible.  Absolutely positively incredible.  I assume you're serious
in asking this question.  If I had ended up as a chalk line on the sidewalk
would you ask the perpetrators the same question "...did he dispose of the
paper properly?"  If I didn't, obviously I deserved to die, robbed, or
be beaten?  Incredible that this has any reasonable bearing on the incident.
[Excuse me, "sickening" is more the word that I would like to use.]

.14> And was Governor Wilson in fact speaking at the Biltmore that night? 

I have no earthly idea.

.14> Had you gone to hear him speak?

I had no earthly idea at to the Governor's whereabouts on that particular
evening, nor, did I particularly care.

.14> Was your presence there that evening to any extant political ..

My presence there was prompted by the fact that I had a 7:00 AM meeting the
next morning at the downtown Los Angeles office of Digital Equipment Corporation
and that hotel was a convenient place to stay.

.14> ..and were you thus philosophically opposed to these protestors even
.14> before you met them?

N/A

.14> I wonder if your reflection upon these questions might reveal to yourself
.14> (and to us, if you care to share the answers) any hidden motives behind
.14> this sorry incident of violence.

"...hidden motives...", "..sorry incident of violence..".  My friend, I had
to read this a few times, and, calm down before continuing.  I find it totally
inconceivable ... to even imply hidden motives - that is to say - gay bashing
- an accusation/insinuation of the most serious nature.  I am genuinely sorry
for I am having a difficult time in interpreting your questions in any other
light.

Never before, in years of notes repartee', have I been so scurrilously accused
without the common courtesy of even thinly veiled pusillanimous wording.

[Before I forget it - I used the term gay bashing - I don't know if they
were gay - don't give a damn if they were or were not]

.14> But I wonder if they were...solely the ones at fault.

I will be very interested, after answering your questions, if you still
"wonder".

.23> Folks, if Jerry did know the answers to those questions, then the
.23> possibility arises that he was out looking for trouble.  I don't ask him
.23> to admit it.  

What do you mean "knows the answers to those questions"?  Damned right
I know the answers.  The answer may be "yes", it may be "no" and it may
be "I don't know" or "I don't know and don't give a damn", but, please
rest assured that I *do* know the answers!  It may not be the answers
that you want to hear, but, they are the answers as they applied to
me on that evening.

You forgot to ask if I had been drinking.  Perhaps I smoked a few joints
before I took a walk.  Maybe I was on some 'pills'?  You forgot to ask
me if I had ever been robbed before.  You forgot to ask if I was armed.
You forgot to ask if I have ever been beaten before. You forgot to ask
if they were 6', 250# bruisers or a bunch of 95# weaklings. You forgot 
that there were three of them and one of me.

I'm sorry, all of that is not material - the "politics" are material.
How stupid of me.

"..out looking for trouble..".  Incredible.  PLEASE give me slightly
more credit for *some* mental capacity.

.23> I agree its a pretty ugly scenario.

You bettcha, but, that certainly didn't hamper you bringing it up.  To what
end, I'll probably never know.

.23> [on knowing where the Governor was and who was picketing him] As an
.23> informed and opinionated Californian, I expect the same of you.  Does
.23> that  have bearing on the matter?  I think so.

Excuse me?  So I neglected to keep up on state politics, and, who was
demonstrating at a particular location ... then I am guilty?  You "expect"
the same level of interest from *me* that you have in certain areas of
politics?  Thank you very much, but, with all due respect, I'll choose
those areas of politics which do (and which do not) interest me. (I'm
beginning to see why those visions of Germany in 1933 are appearing)

.23> 'physical characteristics'?  No, the group I had in mind is political.

I personally don't give a flyin' damn what their politics were - absolutely
positively could care less.  I could care less if they were Democrats,
Republicans, Baptist, Methodist, Jewish, Army, Navy, Marine, butcher, baker,
or candlestick maker.  All of 'em can carry a knife or pull a trigger.

.23> I was asking about what you knew about that night at and around the
.23> Biltmore *before* the incident.

How about this:  It was a hotel, two blocks from the Digital office.  Nothing
more and nothing less.  The only thing on my mind was the meeting the next
day.  Is that so difficult to comprehend?

I didn't know where the Governor was, I didn't know who was picketing him,
I didn't dispose of the trash properly, I didn't know the politics of these
"people" .. therefore I'm obviously guilty as sin.  Now *that* is difficult
to comprehend.

Bubba

PS - if you want to call me a homophobe - do it.  Don't beat around the
bush.  I have no respect for people like that.

    RE: .48
    
    In your opening note .0, YOU openly asked people 
    >> What do you think ?
    
    I think you have a serious problem with anybody who does not
    agree with you, or anyone who does not respond the way you
    want them to.
    
    The questions were pretty simple, and there were no innuendos
    
    A few of your obvious supporters have you convinced that you've
    been accused and you believe them
    
    So, no let's get aggressive in wrting styles and stike back at the
    person that others believe is suggesting something else may be wrong
    
    You also said in .0 that there were >> better ways to settle disputes
    Well, here was the second opportunity to show others what that better way
    is ... you missed it again
    
    As I said in .6, your words and actions are inconsistent
    
    christopher

    Sorta a rathole, but every time I start to reply here, 
    the system or lat or whatever goes down, then come right 
    back up.  It's annoying!
    
    RE: 48
    
    Great note Jerry.
    
    Doug-
    
    I must also have poor reading skills because I too got the impression
    that you were insinuating that Jerry was purposly looking for an
    excuse to execute homophobic exercises.  I still say politics don't
    matter a damn when you are by yourself and accosted by 3 strangers.
    Somebody brought up the point (was it you?) that perhaps if the 
    leafleteers were ROTC members that perhaps the reaction may have 
    been different.  It still doesn't matter.  Jerry can pick and choose
    how he can deal with literature from all walks of life and shouldn't
    have to worry about being watched, followed and accosted because he
    didn't show interest in a particular cause.
    
    CK

    .45
    
    Sorry about that! My mistake. I to hate the word homophobic too. I
    wasn't reading your message correctly. I realize that I goofed and am
    making a public opoligie here. And promise not do that agian.
    Hopefully. :) But, I am not the first one to do a bonar like this. Nor
    will I be the last. 
    
    
    George

>Never before, in years of notes repartee', have I been so scurrilously accused
>without the common courtesy of even thinly veiled pusillanimous wording.

 I'm not sure there's any "nice" way to ask if you were predisposed to
violence against these pamphleteers; not necessarily to imply you went
looking to "gay-bash" (or bash any group in particular), but just that
you were predisposed to react with violence to the slightest provocation.
I think it's a valid question, particularly in light of your military 
training. (I note that Doug also has military training.)

 It's a tough question, to be sure. I don't think there should be any
problem in asking it, though, because it's a relevant question. If you did
not want to be asked pointed and probing questions, then perhaps your
posting was not a particularly good idea. The one thing you can count on
in notes is contention. If you wanted a rubber stamp approval for your actions,
notes was not the right place. If there's a second thing you can count on
in notes, that's gotta be people jumping to conclusions based on incomplete
and often insufficient evidence. You saw that too.

 I don't blame you for getting your hackles up as a result of Doug's questions.
I found them to be somewhat accusatory myself. But keep your wits about you
and don't allow yourself to be put on the emotional track. Answer the
questions directly, completely, and matter-of-factly, and you'll come out
looking the winner.

 The Doctah

re .0

Was your force justified - Yes, you had been attacked, you have a right to
respond in kind.

Was your response excessive - No.  In self-defense there are two goals: nullify
the initial attack and prevent the attacker from making another attack.

Rich

    Perhaps next time, after Jerry gets a flyer stuff down his shirt. He
    could invite them over for tea and krumpits. If justifible voilence
    doesn't apear to be valid. 

    Jerry gave us his account of an incident.  He asked us whether we think
    he was justified in using violence.  Some people seem to think that the
    politics of the situation are relevant to their answer.  Indeed, were
    this case in court, such questions would surely be asked, at least to
    help determine pre-meditation.  Let's assume for a moment that one of
    the brochure-pushers had suffered a concussion when his head hit the
    pavement and had died.  Could Jerry have plead self-defense?  In NH at
    least, to plead self-defense, you have to prove that you had no
    alternative to the force you used.  If you could have run away, then
    you cannot plead self-defense.  If your life was clearly not
    threatened, then you cannot plead self-defense.  
    
    The brochure-pushers were clearly being very obnoxious and provocative
    (assuming Jerry's account is fair) and I doubt that anyone reading here
    thinks they weren't begging for trouble.  Most people probably feel
    that Jerry did what they'd like to imagine themselves being able to
    do with impunity in similar circumstances.  I am reminded of the scene
    in "Airplane" where someone punches out a Hare Krishna at the airport.
    We all laugh at that because that's what we all feel like doing.  But
    most of us wouldn't do that.  Most of us wouldn't punch out the 
    obnoxious brochure-pushers.  I wouldn't.  I would have run away, if
    possible.  Was what you did, Jerry, justifiable?  I think probably not.
    I think you used more force than was necessary.  I think you let anger
    overcome your better judgment.
    							- Vick

    I too would have run away. I would also have hated myself for the
    coward I would feel that I was.
    Also assuming -as I feel I must- that Jerry's account is fair, and that
    I hadn't been provocative (and sometimes I am and don't even know it)

RE: .52

Thanks, Doctah, you're right.  There are times when these electronic
cocktail parties get a little out of hand.  My primary concern as of
yesterday was why field service won't let me move a BI expansion box to
the 6000 cabinet ... and not this notes string.

I've detected a strain of "until the questions are answered" from my
learned and esteemed associate, the gentleman from Northern California, to whit:

689.3> I stated QUESTIONS.  Until Jerry answers them...

689.19> But before I can honestly conclude that Jerry was justified in his
689.19> response, I want to know a little bit more about what went on.

689.19> I will reserve my judgement.

687.34> Until Jerry decides whether or not he wants to pursue this with me, I'll
687.34> decline to comment further.

687.34> Thanks, Mark, but pursuing this one is up to him.
687.39> To help him figure that out, I asked some questions...

687.43> I am not prepared to give him without knowing one heck of a lot
687.43> [when] He answers the questions, I'll decide whether...

I've answered the questions to the best of my ability.  I, at a minimum,
sincerely hope that they are to your satisfaction.  If not, you may continue
your cross examination.  When you get the time, please let us hear from
you.

Thanking you in advance,
Bubba

>In NH at
>    least, to plead self-defense, you have to prove that you had no
>    alternative to the force you used. If you could have run away, then
>    you cannot plead self-defense.  If your life was clearly not
>    threatened, then you cannot plead self-defense. 

 Since when has this been the case? I know it's true in Massachusetts, where you
are required by law to vacate your premises if a burglar or rapist or murderer
enters with the intent of doing anything malicious, but I don't believe this
is the case in NH. Can you quote an RSA number please?

So in a strange city, at night, where do you run to?  It sounds like the
folks with the pamphlets were also blocking retreat back to the hotel.
The character of many city neighborhoods changes when the sun goes down.
How do you tell in advance if you don't live there?  And once someone has
grabbed your shoulder, your options are considerably reduced.  You are on
their turf, with no knowledge as to whether they are armed.  The fact
that they have started the incident makes them dangerous.  In today's
world, you can't fault anyone for assuming the worst.  In most cities,
the cops just clean up the debris.  And if in fact there were political
gatherings going on that night, the cops were probably busy elsewhere.
Sounds to me like the trio tried to take advantage of the wrong guy.
And I won't stay at the Bitmore the next time that I'm out there....

    re:  Self-defense
    These were the directions given to me by the judge in a murder trial in
    NH.
    					- Vick

ok, Jerry- you aren't following the state political scene with the same
level of interest I had mistakenly presumed you were.  And you were not
at the Biltmore to hear Gov Wilson speak, so you presumably had no reason
to expect an encounter of the type you had.  Thank you for considering the
questions openly.  I no longer have any reservations that your actions in
self-defense were justified, and I also don't think you were looking for
trouble.  Mark's right, there wasn't any nice way for me to ask these kinds
of questions- but I felt (and still feel) that they needed to be explored
before I could fully evaluate your situation, which you had asked us to do.
Sorry it seemed like a cross-examination.

DougO

	Folks,  the politics don't matter.  

	Once the three stooges put their hand on Jerry, the
	issue became the crime of battery.

	One MAY NOT accost someone physically in this country !

	To those who would have run:  Could you have been sure of
	outrunning some bad guys ?  For those of us in our late 30s
	(that aren't marathon runners) this might be an interesting
	contest with a fit 18 year-old.

	To those who would have feigned interest in the stupid
	flyer:   You might be the one to embolden these idiots
	enough that the next person who resists their efforts gets
	a poke in nose !

	I don't have the size, strength or training to pose much of
	a threat to chumps like these, but if there were truly no way
	out, I'd like to think that I'd handle it like an ex-Marine
	buddy of mine.  When faced with a 3-on-1 situation, where
	mayhem was guaranteed, he just decided, "Well, I'm gonna take
	at least one of 'em with me !".  He yelled like a madman and
	went for his attackers like a buzzsaw.   He got majorly stomped,
	but broke one's leg, and knocked out a few teeth.

	Keep in mind, when these cretins initiated the use of force, then
	"polite society's" rules of behaviour got suspended.....as they
	should have.

	Steve H	

    First - from the description Jerry gave, I'd say he was justified in 
    responding, but I think the extent of his response may have been a
    tad excessive.  I don't even care too much about that, except for
    maybe (due to the political climate at the time of incident) how the
    whole thing will be interpreted by the "leafleters" - I think rather
    than learning a lesson about polite behavior, these guys are likely
    to see the whole scene as a kind of gay bashing.  And that if they
    (or we here in this file) go describing it as a gay bashing, the 
    controversy will deflect attention from *REAL* bashings....which are 
    reaching epidemic proportions in some places.   I certainly don't
    think this was a bashing (far from it).

    I want to play devil's advocate though.  I think several noters think 
    *ANY* response is justified and I disagree with that (I also disagree 
    with outrageous restrictions placed on the right to self-defense).  I 
    think there are limits on how you can respond to a perceived threat and
    if a situation such as the one in the basenote were to actually come to 
    trial, Jerry's reaction would be judged based upon what a "reasonable" 
    person might have felt the level of danger was.

    In looking at the level of danger.... it sounds like several people in 
    here are suggesting the over-zealous political activists who accosted 
    Jerry were no different than the criminal gang members who carry knives 
    and guns.  Granted, in LA after dark you can never be sure who you are 
    dealing with (and that could very well be a reason to argue Jerry was 
    foolish to try and respond to these three relatively unknown people,
    with violence....one of them could have had a gun.  They could have been 
    real criminals, high on crack or something ??)  However, I'd argue that 
    political activists of this type do not go around violently attacking 
    people (and even Jerry didn't describe this as a violent attack on his 
    person), and thugs out to knife or shoot someone don't generally carry 
    political leaflets.  So I think it reasonable to hold the opinion that 
    perhaps Jerry's reaction was more severe than the situation warranted.

    How reasonable was it for him to actually fear real physical danger 
    from these people?  

    I'm not asking these questions because I want to defend the behavior
    of the activists (though I won't deny I sympathize with their cause).
    I'm asking the questions because of some of the reactions written here 
    that seem to imply if Jerry had pulled out a gun and used it with
    deadly effect, he'd be seen as a hero.   

    There is such a thing as over-reaction.

    /Greg

    
    	Just reading this a little bit.. I didn't read all replys but
    	hay relax everyone smile....(0
    					^ 0
    				    (0  
    
    	I think his reactions were his own and to each his own.
    	I think under those conditions I might have did some what
    	of the same thing but then again I can say yeah I might have
    	puched there lights out, But you really don't know what your
    	going to do unless it happens to you and either the juice starts
    	flowing and you kick butt. or you let it go. but then are they
    	going to let it go.. some people said they would have run..
    	"WRONG........"  you think after they just got done following you
    	to make sure you read a pamplet or what ever it was. let you
    	run away.. no way... they would have ran after you then what..??
    	now they are going to try more physical actions becuase they
    	already think you ran once now " this guy will read it.." if they
    	catch you.. or I could be wrong and they might just leave it alone.
    	"BUT NOW HOW DO YOU FEEL..." I'd feel allot better knowing I didn't
    	run from something I believe in.." My Own rights to not read
    	something I really didn't want to read.." regardless of the fact
    	if they were ' what ever''' becuase i really don't know who the
    	gov. is.. I blind to that fact.. but I picked up on it a little.
    	So in any case... My point is .. everyone says they can act  one
    	way or another but if your under those conditions.. are you really
    	going to do what you said you were going to do in here... MAYBE..	
    	MAYBE NOT.. I say I'm going to kill my big brother all the time..
    	did I.. I don't think so or I wouldn't be writing here.
    	all it is, is frustrations... and he acted in a way that he at that
    	moment decided was his best way out.. I think. this is what he
    	felted. Either that.. or he was a little ticked off before hand..
    	oh ps.. this is my first reply to this conference.. so if
    	anyone disagrees.. be easy on me ahhee.. thanks.. and rememeber
    	this is a topic of discussion not  alley in la by the bitel hotel..
    	ha h hha .. that was a funny.. enjoy.
    	
    	-dennis.

.64> How reasonable was it for him to actually fear real physical danger 
.64> from these people? 

A reasonable question and I'll try for a reasonable answer.

How reasonable would it have been  for  me  to  UNDERESTIMATE  the  real
physical danger?

When a slug or knife enters a vital organ, there is an irrefutable  fact
that  you have a very high propensity for death.  At that point in time,
there is no politics, no 'rights', no anything - dead is dead - you're a
chalk outline on a sidewalk.  Had I *underestimated* I could have easily
been that chalk outline.  I chose to estimate within the  limits  of  my
ability and the potential and/or probable threat.

There was temporary, albeit somewhat painful,  incapacitation  on  their
part.  Believe it or not, I knew to what extent I could go - and - I did
not exceed those limits of simply incapacitating the individuals.  Had a
weapon  appeared  -  this  would  have  been  a whole new ball game.  My
estimate of the potential danger would have increased ...  as would  the
severity of my response.

.64> There is such a thing as over-reaction.

I do not think I over-reacted.  I think that I would have been  properly
accused  of  over-reaction  had I overestimated the potential threat and
truly punched their lights out.  As it was, I think that  my  assessment
and corresponding response was in line.

Since the "politics" seems to be  of  more  import  than  the  potential
threat  of  danger  there's one other issue:  Assessment and reaction to
'gay bashing'.

I have no earthly idea as to whether or not these individuals were  gay.
I  have  no earthly idea as to whether or not the literature was pro-gay
or anti-gay.

The headline read "Governor Wilson is a Homophobe" - the remainder could
have said "and we're proud of him", or, it could have said "and we decry
his rejection of <such-and-such> legislation".   The  three  guys  could
have  been neo-Nazi or they could have been from ACT UP or any number of
other  organizations.   The  organization  and/or  the  message  was  of
absolutely no consequence to me at that time.

Why does one assume they were gay?  *I* assumed that they may have  been
one  of  the groups who were picketing Wilson ...  perhaps it just human
nature?  Perhaps they were neo-Nazi.  I assume that the response from my
learned  associate from Massachusetts, Mr.  Schuler, would have been the
same irrespective of the political affiliations of the individuals?   My
response certainly would have been no different.

Bubba

          <<< Note 687.58 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Shot down in flames" >>>

> Since when has this been the case? I know it's true in Massachusetts, where you
>are required by law to vacate your premises if a burglar or rapist or murderer
>enters with the intent of doing anything malicious, but I don't believe this
>is the case in NH. Can you quote an RSA number please?

I don't believe this is true in Mass any longer. I cannot quote statute or 
legal precedence, but have sent it off to my brother who is active in 
several groups that keep track of legal matters such as this and will try to 
get an exact quote on the Mass laws as they currently apply to forced entry 
into your home.

    	Vic H

    RE: .66

    >A reasonable question and I'll try for a reasonable answer.

    And you succeeded.  Thanks.  I can accept that you responded
    in the manner you felt appropriate.  

   >Since the "politics" seems to be  of  more  import  than  the  potential
   >threat  of  danger....

    I know you have maintained the "politics" are not an issue, but I
    disagree.  Neo-nazi groups are violent almost by definition and
    one would be expected to feel threatened if approached by members
    of such a group.  ACT-UP (and similar groups) on the other hand, 
    while well known for disruptive civil disobedience, are NOT known
    for threatening the safety of individuals on city streets.  Your
    perception of the activists in question is relevant to the
    determination of whether or not your response was reasonable.  If
    you perceived the activists as Neo-nazis, your feelings of being
    in danger would be reasonable.  If, on the other hand, you perceived
    the activists as ACT-UP types, your feelings of being in danger would
    be much less reasonable.   As it is, you have maintained that you
    assumed they were the latter though you can't be completely sure.

    The politics of the activists certainly are irrelevant to the question
    of whether they should be physically insisting passers-by read their
    literature - clearly no group should behave in this manner.  I maintain,
    however, that the politics are relevant when considering how passers-by
    respond.

    I assume the above answers the question of whether my "response...would
    have been the same irrespective of the political affiliation of the
    individuals" posed in .66?   I think I've answered that but I'm not
    sure I completely understand your question - my response being what
    I've said in this topic or my response being what I might have done
    had I been in your shoes?   To repeat, If you had known for a FACT the 
    individuals were Neo-nazis, a violent response from you would have been 
    more reasonable than if you had known for a FACT the individuals were from
    ACT-UP - simply because in the first case group affiliation is reason
    to expect violence and in the latter case it is not.

    I would say the same thing if the "choice of perceptions" were between
    a group of white supremacists and a group of evangelical Christians.
    The former are violence prone, the latter are not.

    In your shoes, I probably would have just taken the literature and
    stuffed it in my pocket.

    /Greg

.68> ACT-UP (and similar groups) on the other hand, while well known
.68> for disruptive civil disobedience, are NOT known for threatening
.68> the safety of individuals on city streets.  Your perception of
.68> the activists in question is relevant to the determination of
.68> whether or not your response was reasonable.

I agree, and, all the more reason why my response was well within reason. 

Perhaps you've not seen the news spots on how ACT UP's "disruptive civil
disobedience" has turned to out-and-out violence with attendant rioting
and destruction of public and private property?  This has taken place
in the Los Angeles area.  The LAPD "Metro Squad" (a top notch police
response unit) has been assigned to respond to their "activities", and,
with justification.

.68> If you perceived the activists as Neo-nazis, your feelings of being
.68> in danger would be reasonable.  If, on the other hand, you perceived
.68> the activists as ACT-UP types, your feelings of being in danger would
.68> be much less reasonable.

See above.

.68> As it is, you have maintained that you assumed they were the latter
.68> though you can't be completely sure.

Precisely, and, in this case it made little or no difference since I had
seen the news on the destruction and violence.

.68> I maintain, however, that the politics are relevant when considering
.68> how passers-by respond.

At 10:00 PM in downtown Los Angeles ... well ... as one 'BOXer put it, 
I should plead "not guilty for reason of insanity" for being there in
the first place :-) ...

Bubba

The following is a reply from my brother as promised in .66(?) my reply of 
last evening around the Mass law and protecting yourself. The bottom line 
is that you *DO NOT* have to flee if you are endangered....
===================================

Governor King proposed and had passed legislation commonly known as the
"Home is Castle" law. After a woman was sentenced to jail for shooting a 
man in her home and the courts ruled she had not tried to escape.(she also
had a young child at her side she was protecting).

The law now states that you *DO NOT* have to leave your home. To use the
defense of justifiable homicide or self-defense(depending on the final outcome)
you must show that 1) You were in fear of death or grave bodily harm
2) the attacker had the ability to carry out those threats. 3) the
threats or attacks were made in such a way as to be believable and carried out.

in other words someone shouting from across the street "I am going to kill you"
with out advancing toward you is not a threat. a ninety-pound elderly
person in a wheel chair screaming threats(with no weapon in hand) is not 
a threat, a large person with a baseball bat/knife/gun/bare-hands/chain/etc
kicking in your front door screaming "I'll tear your head off" is an excellent
and justifiable reason to pull the trigger. and *NO* they don't have to
actually be _INSIDE_, and *NO* you do not drag them in, or tamper with the
crime scene in any way.

===================================

I think it is important to note that you, as the defender, do have to be in 
reasonable fear for yourself, and have some justification for what you do.
You just can't shoot to kill automatically, but if you do have to shoot, 
you may be justified....

    Vic

    The correct response when a weapon appears is to do whatever they want
    you to.  By "correct" I mean the one statistically most likely to see
    you alive at the end of the confrontation.  I lived on the south side
    of Chicago for six years and know of one black belt in karate no longer
    with us because he thought he could take out the guy with the knife.
    I always carried money with me back then because there was what was
    known as "taking it in blood" i.e., give us your money - oh, no money -
    okay, we'll take it in blood.  I was never mugged, but my best friend
    was.  He just gave them his billfold.  He was also robbed while driving
    a taxi.  I'm not a complete coward.  With a friend I once chased down a 
    purse-snatcher and held him until the police came.  I'm sure I wouldn't
    do it now.  Now I might risk my life for someone else's life, but not for
    their money.  
    
    Jerry, I'm curious now why you wanted our opinion on this matter.  At
    first I thought it might be because you had some personal doubts about
    whether you had been justified.  But your latest notes don't seem to
    indicate any doubts at all.  It seems to me that since you entered it
    both here and in soapbox that it must have been more than just idle
    curiosity.  If you gave us your motives in .0 I apologize for asking
    and for being too lazy to go back and reread it.
    
    					- Vick
    

    Jerry,
    
    The violence you attribute to ACT-UP members, can you elaborate?
    Was violence initiated by them, or were they threatened with
    violence by onlookers, to which they may have responded, not unlike
    you, because they felt threatened or violated.  If the latter is the
    case, then their violence is as justifiable as yours.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Richard

.71> Jerry, I'm curious now why you wanted our opinion on this matter.  At
.71> first I thought it might be because you had some personal doubts about
.71> whether you had been justified.  But your latest notes don't seem to
.71> indicate any doubts at all.

All of the above and none of the above ... :-)

Basically, a point of discussion and of interest to me.  I can best describe
my emotions as being very similar to the time that my wife and I separated
(divorced).  After being "away" I began to realize that I didn't have these
extreme periods of depression that I'd heard some people go through - sure
I missed my kids, but, everything felt "right" after the family breakup -
I felt 'good' ... that (seriously) bothered me.  I should have felt bad from
everything that I heard.

Similarly here.  I really don't like violence, but, something said 'they
deserved it' and it didn't bother me in the least.  I know that I NORMALLY
detest violence, but, this time it felt "right" ... if you know what I
mean.  Hard to put into words.

I thought, as a point of discussion, it would be interesting to see if
anyone agreed with me.  It is of little consequence since I cannot correct
the past, and, I'd do the same thing under the same circumstances.

Does that make any sense?

Bubba

.72> The violence you attribute to ACT-UP members, can you elaborate?
.72> Was violence initiated by them, or were they threatened with
.72> violence by onlookers, to which they may have responded, not unlike
.72> you, because they felt threatened or violated.  If the latter is the
.72> case, then their violence is as justifiable as yours.

ACT UP was only one of the groups involved - a number of others participated
in the riots.  No, they *WERE NOT* responding to threats by onlookers - not
in the least!!  As the LAPD said, they can't negotiate with anyone because
it was a mob, no leader, random violence.  The pictures that I saw on
the evening news ... breaking windows, overturning cars, fires ... no,
that is not "threatened with violence by onlookers", they *were* the violence.
It was the onlookers who were in danger!!

Oh, I'm sure that they would say that they were justified because the
Governor did a veto on a bill (I think "111" was the number) ... but if
this crap continues ... believe me ... all Hell is going to break loose
and some people are going to get hurt.  The term "war zone" comes to
mind.

I do not like violence, but, faced with it, I do not seem (any longer) to
have any propensity to run from it.

Bubba

    
    I've just read all these replies in one go ... whew!
    
    I think that Jerry's actions were justified, and I don't think he
    particularly overreacted ... after all, as he said, he didn't actually
    "punch their lights out", but made sure that their accosting of him
    stopped.
    
    I don't think it makes any difference what the leaflets were about ...
    here in the UK we're often handed leaflets advertising various
    shops/discounts as we walk along the street, and I always just drop them 
    in the next bin I come across, regardless of whether that's within view
    of the leafleteer or not.  I don't expect the person who handed it 
    to me to grab hold of me and try to stuff them down my clothes saying 
    "You will read it ... it says 10% off!".
    
    As an aside, I wonder why the automatic reaction of most people is to
    take these things?  For my part it's because I hate confrontation of
    any sort, if I see people handing out leaflets I at first try to avoid
    their gaze and skirt round them in the hope they won't try to hand me
    one.  But if they do I always take it rather than have to "confront"
    them with "No thanks", and then bin it.    
    
    Illogical, eh?
    
    Sam
    
    

    If someone pinched you, would you have a right to kick him in the head?
    If someone slapped you on the back would you have a right to punch him
    in the face?
    
    I've read somewhere about an eye for an eye. I've never heard of an eye
    for an eyelash?
    
                       Kate

.77> If someone pinched you, would you have a right to kick him in the head?
    
    Depends upon where they pinched me... :-)
    
    Bubba

    I used to take leaflets.  Now I almost always keep my hands down and
    shake my head.  I don't think anyone ever handed me a leaflet that
    contained information I found useful, so why waste paper?
    
    					- Vick

    Without breaking stride, I shake my head or mumble "no thank you."
    
    In the rare instance when the leafleteer invades my space, as it were,
    I take the leaflet with a "thank you," still not breaking stride.
    
    If it's something I disagree with, s/he now has one less round of paper
    ammunition.  I don't have time to argue over propaganda!  And I have no
    interest in making anyone eat cement.
    
    Leslie

    I once had some butthead with their politics follow me into a groshry
    store to get the last word in. They were reps of Lyndian Laroch. (sp).
    They wanted to do some stupid thing with kids and drugs like having
    them sterlized. I make a coment that George Washington use to smoke
    pot. Well the lad followed me and was yelling at me and making a public
    spectical of himself. Finaly the manager of the store and some of the
    assistants walked out of now where, up to me and asked if I was being
    bothered. I could have stuffed the guy into a closed can of beer
    myself. But violence doesn't help these situations. They only make
    martars for the cause. And so....  This screaming man was arrested for
    disturbance of the peace. And the stand out frount was never seen
    again. Needless to say. Jerry's case is not that uncommon. Jerry's
    political view is not the issue here. Its when someone takes the law
    into their own hands and decides to dance with the death. For it was
    not Jerry who insighted what happened. It was the lad with the flyer.

    After having read through many of these replies I get the impression
    that in most peoples opinion violence is ok, as long as its doled out
    by the good guys.  The catch comes when we try and define the gray
    areas of good guys.  Where are the lines?  In cases such as the Police
    subduing an armed robber or using violence to protect an innocent
    victim I have no argument about the appropriateness of using violence.
    When it comes to a case such as the base noter where the agressors and
    the potential victim were in fact a relatively equal match I wonder if
    his violent response was appropriate.  I agree that you undoubtedly
    taught them a lesson... to be more careful in sizing people up in the
    future, and, if they do intend to be physically agressive 'urging'
    people to take their leaflet they had better be better armed than the
    person they are speaking to. 
    
    I can't say your were unjustified in attacking them since you couldn't
    have known whether a knife (or gun) would appear to 'encourage' you to
    read their literature.  Since you ARE so well able to defend yourself
    would a less aggressive approach have worked as well without having
    attacked them?  
    
    You did come across to me as relishing your agressive response.  That
    puts me off a bit because it makes me doubt whether your motives were
    that different from those of the guys 'handing out' the leaflets.  Its
    as if you had a chip on your shoulder.  Ok, fine, you appropriately 
    defended yourself, but don't expect cheers from all of us when there
    seemed to have been lesser alternatives available for you to use.  
    
    Jeff

.82> When it comes to a case such as the base noter where the aggressors and
.82> the potential victim were in fact a relatively equal match I wonder if
.82> his violent response was appropriate.

Excuse me?  There were three of them and one of me.  How do you get
"relatively equal match" out of that?  Wow.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
.82> Since you ARE so well able to defend yourself would a less aggressive
.82> approach have worked as well without having attacked them?  

Define "less aggressive approach"
    
.82> ..there seemed to have been lesser alternatives available for you to use.  

Define "lesser alternatives".

As you are defining the less aggressive approach keep in mind that there
are three of them and one of me.  Keep in mind that (as you said) I have
no earthly idea if they are armed.  Keep in mind that my back is turned
on them.  Keep in mind that the streets are empty.

Thanks, looking forward to your reply.

Bubba

    Actually it wasn't an even match.... you beat them with ease... THEY
    were outmatched.  The catch is of course that you COULDN'T HAVE KNOWN
    THAT BEFOREHAND... and that is not a minor point.  I am groping for
    an appropriate response which 'should' have been made.  Perhaps you 
    made it... many are sure you did.  For once the bad guys got trounced.
    I am trying to figure out where the balance is... that is how does one
    defend oneself and remain 'civilized'.  Perhaps I am missing the point
    on that one.  Maybe we don't remain civilized, perhaps we SHOULDN'T
    remain civilized.  The Dirty Harry approach certainly appeals to most
    people.  The problem with that is as I originally said... where is
    the line between an appropriate response and becoming as violent as
    the people we are resisting.  
    I don't see that we (human beings) have made any real progress against
    violence in my lifetime... (I am 48). In fact it seems to have gotten
    far worse.  About all I can say is that we have (so far) avoided an all
    out nuclear war. 
    
    Jeff

    To answer your questions more Bubba.  Lesser approaches:  1. Running
    2. Taking the leaflet with a 'thank you' and appearing to read it or
    at least throw it away out of their sight.
    
    Don't get me wrong.  I think THEY were wrong.  I would defend your 
    position rather than theirs.  Since you asked I am wondering out loud
    what the alternatives you had could have been, and expressing some
    of the thoughts which I have had about the incident.  I intend to 
    be asking the questions I have brought up in a what if sense rather
    than condemming you.  I know, it sure sounds like I comdemm your
    violent response.  Its just that it makes me wonder.  We so
    automatically tend to cheer a violent response to incidents that I
    wanted to ask, (and I don't know) is violence automatically ok in
    cases such as yours?
    
    Jeff

    I love good hand to hand combat.  Back to basics.  Congratulations on a
    job well done.
    
    

.85> We so automatically tend to cheer a violent response to incidents
.85> that I wanted to ask, (and I don't know) is violence automatically
.85> ok in cases such as yours?

Well, in a way, you've captured the very essence of the purpose of this
entry.  I really TRY (I thought) to avoid violence - it just ain't my
cup o' tea.  When I got home from Vietnam as a very old "kid" with
USMC Captain's bars ... I swore that it was "over".  There's got to
be a better way of solving differences.  I HATED fighting!! Then, this
"incident" and .. I felt as:

.86> I love good hand to hand combat.  Back to basics.  Congratulations on a
.86> job well done.

As I said, it bothered me that it *DIDN'T* bother me!!  I actually felt good!
I said "to Hell with it, I'm not going to take this crap any longer, back
to the basics".  When I say "leave me alone", by God, I mean it!  I know,
it's "politically correct" to be non-violent, but, I'm simply not going
to take it any longer.  I will defend to the death (and a lot of guys did)
anyone's right to say what they want, protest, chant, and all the attendant
activities, but, damn it, there is a line, a very fine line, and, when
anyone crosses it ... they'd best give their heart to God because their
ass belongs to me.

Am I so bad?  Is it so wrong?  I just want to (at times) be left alone.

This same note was posted in SOAPBOX and one respondent suggested that my
name be sent to various gay activist groups (he assumed that those passing
out literature were gay) so that they could picket my home!!  Well, I guess
if they want to, that's fine, but, they're in for the surprise of their
life.

What a world.  What a world.

Bubba

    re .87
    
    Could it be that you are tired of violence, tired of others always
    forcing their beliefs on you?  Could it be that you want the world to
    be a safer place to live, but since isn't then you *are* going to
    defend yourself?  I don't condone violence, I detest violence.  BUT if
    someone comes at me in a threatening manner, or tries to force on me
    something that I don't want, then I am going to defend myself, in any
    way that it takes.  IMHO, that's what you did.
    
    Karen

    You may just be right, Karen.  I guess that I'm just tired.  Perhaps
    I'm rebelling.  I think that I've drawn a line in the sand and said
    "don't cross this line" ... and I mean it.

    Bubba

    Bubba, I came down on you kind of hard.  If there is an error in
    response here I think it was theirs.  In other words they were clearly
    trespassing on you by being so pushy.  The fine line is in what is
    the appropriate response.  I don't know.  Fortunately you were able
    to defend yourself and did not become another statistic.  I have trying
    to figure out this riddle my entire life.  "When is violence
    appropriate?" Some of the time its pretty clear as when being directly
    attacked physically by another.  Its the gray areas where the trouble
    begins in trying to figure it out.  How about when waking up in the
    middle of the night and hearing an intruder downstairs.  Certainly
    its a homeowners right to defend his/her family.... guns blasting as
    you go downstairs????  If you hesitate you may be dead... and its on
    your territory.
    
    I do think you should listen to YOURSELF and, when you say you felt
    good afterword then THAT tells me that for you it WAS an appropriate
    response under the circumstances.   Thats good enough for me.
    Nice job.  Lets hope that you will not run into similiar situations
    in the future.
    
    Jeff

    I had another think about this issue. Lets sum it up this way: If I was
    on a jury and had to decide one way or the other.... based on the info
    supplied in the note and the other guys had a complaint against you for
    attacking them... I would find for you and against them.
    
    Jeff

    Jeff,
    
    	O.K. pilgrum.... How would you handle it? Send them an RSVP for tea
    and crumpets? Ask for their phone numbers and address's and send them
    nasty letters? What if someone pulled a knife on you in that situation?
    What if there was a gun there Jethro? Gee, I think you should re-read
    what went on there and have another cup of coffie.

.90> How about when waking up in the middle of the night and hearing
.90> an intruder downstairs.

This is easy ... 'cause it's happened before.

I go downstairs with my friends, Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson.

(A .44 magnum with steel jacketed hollow points.)

Bubba

    First a hand on your shoulder and another trying to force a flier down
    your shirt, causes you to twist and arm and put someone's face on the
    sidewalk, then when someone else calls you "old bastard" you kick them
    in the groin. This is dressed up in cute phrases like "eat cement" and
    "impaired sex life" (rough paraphrasing from memory). IMO, this is much
    more force than called for. More damning is your language, Bubba. It's
    classic macho. Now we have the venerable Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson
    remark. This in the context of your "how can I politely discourage all
    the women after my bod?" topic. And you're oh so military.
    
    I think the real topic here is "I'm a _man_!" I think you protest much
    too muchly. I lose respect.

    re .92  I acknowledged that it probably was too risky to fool around
    with it and that Bubba should have (and did) follow his own instincts.
    I wasn't there... he was, its easy to criticise after the fact... I
    acknowledge that.  If this wasn't a gray situation (one could call 
    an appropriate response either way) we wouldn't be discussing it.
    There ARE too many people who are dead because they took the
    conservative approach (non violent).  Which is worse... the problem
    (violent people) or the 'cure' (violent response)?
    
    Jeff

.94> I think the real topic here is "I'm a _man_!" I think you protest much
.94> too muchly.

It's entirely possible, Hoyt.  I think that I'm so sick and tired of some
things ... that it drives me to distraction.  Your own note typifies some
of it.  Take a look at:

	 "...you kick them in the groin.."    (Translated, I'm bad)
	 "dressed up in cute phrases"	      (Translated, I'm bad)
	 "much more force than called for"    (Translated, I'm bad)
	 "More damning is your Language	      (Translated, I'm bad)
	 "venerable Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson" (Translated, I'm bad)
	 "And you're oh so military"          (Translated, it's bad)

Well ... perhaps it is as you say ..."classic macho".

I see so very much talk about being not-men that ... well ... I really
don't give a flying damn if I am a man and do use language which is 
"classic macho".  This is a conference about men ... being men ... so
many think that we (men) should institute some movement to be non-men.
    
For cryin' out loud ... don't use language that would identify one as
a man ... or ... by all that is holy ... perceived as "macho".  That is
not allowable today.

I want to discuss being a man ... if comes off that I am a man and am a
product of my environment and 40 years on this earth ....if the perception
is that I am looking like a man as it used to be defined ...As Rhet said ...
"frankly my dear, I don't give a damn".

I sympathize a lot with Mr. Linville.

Bubba

    I'm a man.  But I'm not at all like you, Jerry.  I suppose you would
    classify me as a non-man because I'm not like you.  You call me "bad"
    in just about every sentence of .96.  But macho just don't cut it much
    no more.  Besides, macho is a relatively new invention.  In the old
    days, when men were men, they cried, sang, recited poetry, and wore
    skirts (they also fought valiantly bled and died, but that's another
    story).  Present-day macho is an artifact of the frontier days of 
    America, days long gone and best cherished only as memories, not as
    models of life today.  Hang around the saloons, attract bar women like
    flies, and duke it out with the shag-nasties if you want.  I got better
    things to do.
    
    					- Vick
    
    P.S.  I don't wear skirts, but I do all the rest.  :^)

    
    This topic has been quite the exercise.
    I've certainly enjoyed how some have twisted what happened.
    Pretty soon, it'll be a friendly hand on the shoulder and
    please accept this flier sir.
    
    I get the distinct impression that some would be more comfortable
    if Bubba had ended up a statistic.
    
    Just curious....would those who disagreed with the actions of
    the basenoter feel differently if he were approached by a small
    group of klansmen?..or neo-nazis', skinheads????
    
    						Hank
    
    Ps I think you did the appropriate thing Bubba. I wish more
       people did too.

.97> I suppose you would classify me as a non-man because I'm not like you.

No sir.  I'd never do that.  I like a diversity of people, opinions, and
definitions.

.97> You call me "bad" in just about every sentence of .96.

Forgive the interpretation.  My reflections were directed toward the
author of the note to which I was responding.  It was (unfortunately)
a very "localized" discussion between the two of us and I would never
in a million years want to cast dispersions on anyone else.  It was
simply *my* interpretation of how he was addressing me.  Forgive?

.97> But macho just don't cut it much no more.

Yeah .. I know it ... times past and all that stuff ... but ... I
do identify a little with Rhet.

.97> Hang around the saloons, attract bar women like flies, and duke it
.97> out with the shag-nasties if you want,

... not necessary ... I can really get the same effect in VAX Notes.  It's
less filling and less expensive.

Bubba

.100> Just curious....would those who disagreed with the actions of
.100> the basenoter feel differently if he were approached by a small
.100> group of klansmen?..or neo-nazis', skinheads????

Hank, good luck in getting a response to this.  As long as those handing
out the paper were perceived as "good guys" I am most assuredly a "bad guy".
    
I can only guess as to the content of the paper ... they could have been
gay activist or KKK ... to me, it made no difference ... should it have?
To some people the answer to "should it have" is ... yes.

I'm going to be very interested to see if you get a response.

Bubba

    Under the circumstances of .0 I would have run.
    If it had been klansmen or neo-nazis or skinheads I would have
    run like hell.  Or maybe I would have just taken the flier.
    
    Good is as good does.  I don't see the guys in .0 as being good guys
    no matter what their cause was.  
    
    						- Vick

.103> If it had been klansmen or neo-nazis or skinheads I would have
.103> run like hell.
    
    Ain't it the truth.  Had I seen the Swastika ... it would have been
    a whole new ball game  ...  however ... since my German is relatively
    fluent I could have probably snowed the dickens out of them.
    
    Bubba

    RE .96:
    
    IMO, being a man does not require brutal retaliation when threatened
    with a flyer. If courage is the issue, then it is sometimes courageous
    to accept the "wimpy" appearence of the placator. IMO, manliness does
    not require bragging about beating up guys or being propositioned by
    women or looking like a Marine or wielding a pistol. Any guy can brag
    about conquests or get a flattop haircut or buy a Smith & Wesson. IMO,
    it is an act of bravery to ask for a hug from a not-huggy father, or to
    reveal fears of incompetency to one's wife. What's _really_ hard is
    taking emotional risks. IMO, macho is truly wimpy.
    
    If you were stronger, Bubba, perhaps you could risk appearing weak.

.105> What's _really_ hard is taking emotional risks.

I guess I'm a product of my environment and for the moment there's not
a damned thing that I can do about it.  Oh, I'm more than painfully
aware of "emotional" risks.  In some ways I think that I've been through
more emotion in the last four years than I've been through in the prior
20 years combined.  No, I don't think so ... I know so.

I've been trying to sort out one hell of a lot of things over these last
four years - some things easier than others - but nearly all are clothed
in emotional trappings which may boggle the mind.  It runs the gauntlet
from rich to well-off to broke ... from love to hate ... from total
instability to the rock of Gibraltar ... from running forward to falling
backwards ... from smiling and laughing to crying ... from looking forward
to tomorrow to not giving a damn if tomorrow ever comes, and some times
hoping that it doesn't.

>If you were stronger, Bubba, perhaps you could risk appearing weak.

Some things really bother me and at times I tend to look for some forum
in which to discuss those issues - you know - try to 'sort things out'.

Taken out of context and lumped together within the context of these
conferences, I can certainly see how one reaches certain conclusions.  That
is simply the product of the inadequacy of this medium of electronic
communications.  There is no "cure" for that with the single exception
of the fact that I must be much more careful as to what I write.

I don't want to create the wrong impression so I'll exercise more care to
demonstrate the emotional disaster that I truly am.  I've been smashed
to smithereens over the last four years.  It's been damned difficult to
try to regain some of the "meaning" of life that I had in the past. It
appears that I continue to use the wrong words ...  I'll be more careful 
in the future ... with one exception and one thing that I know for sure:
I'm not going to be some "common denominator" and be put into some neat 
little socially engineered mold just because I'm a male.  I would rather die.

Bubba

    Thanks for pulling the curtain aside a little so we could see more of
    the human being.  Hope everything works out.  
    								- Vick

    Suppose you were in a comfortable domestic situation, of which all your
    friends and family approved, but your deepest needs were unfulfilled...
    so you leave that life to try again for happiness. You love those you
    leave behind, and you go forward into great uncertainty, but it is an
    act of integrity to do so, and there you go... and _damn_ the torpedos.
    
    True courage.

Mr. Nelson.  You just summed up the last four years of my life in two
sentences.  You hit the nail squarely on the head.

.109> ..and _damn_ the torpedoes.

Only problem is that the torpedoes turned out to be much larger than
anticipated and coming from directions that I would never have in a
million years dreamed of.

.109> True courage.

Thanks.  I'm beginning to realize that.  I thought that "courage" was
when a whole bunch of little people in black pajamas were trying to
ruin my day .. and I stood there blasting away.  That took guts, not
courage.  I'm only beginning to understand the true meaning of the
word "courage".

Bubba

    re .106
    
    	Bubba,
    
    		You discribed the last four years of my life.
    
    
    			Thank You, it's nice to know there is someone else
    out there swatting those damn torpedos.
    
    
    			HAND
    			Wayne

.111> You discribed the last four years of my life.
    
    Great .. should we go on Oprah, Geraldo, or Sally Jesse Whatshername?
    
    Bubba

>>        Great .. should we go on Oprah, Geraldo, or Sally Jesse
    Whatshername?
    
    "People who's live are seem outa control."
    
    I dunno, Bubba.  It's going to be an awfully crowded stage.
    
    Kris

I just started reading this file again after having a very busy few months. 
It's awful when work gets in the way of your noting.   ;')

After reading the base note and some of the replies, one thing occurs 
to me.  The only one of us that was there was Bubba.  We can all judge 
Bubba and rationalize what we'd do in a similar situation or tell bubba 
what he should have done instead.  But that don't mean a thing if you 
weren't there.

Bubba, it seems to me that you're in good company as to your agonizing over 
the correctness of your actions.  The late Gichin Funakoshi (founder of 
Shotokan Karate) had a similar experience in his mid 80's.  When accosted 
by a young ruffian while waiting for a train, he disabled the kid in very 
short order.  In his autobiography, he agonizes over having done that and 
wished he had chosen a less violent course of action.  It seems that hind-
sight is always 20/20.


				Regards,
				  Ron

    re: .114   Just keep in mind that Bubba, knowing that he was the only
    one of us there, asked us to judge his actions.  We were only following
    orders and he cannot (and did not) blame us for judging him.
    
    						- Vick

.115> We were only following orders...

    And youah' Captian 'preciates that, Private Bennison ... :-)

.115> he cannot (and did not) blame us for judging him.

    Hey, long time ago mah' pappy told me don't ever ask any questions that
    you don't want answers to.  That most assuredly applies to Notes.  I
    don't "blame" *anyone*!!  I may disagree with someone - but I asked, and,
    expect response - the fact that I may or may not like it ... well ....
    that's called "life".  I was somewhat pleased that the vast majority of
    people were in agreement with my actions ... surprised at some
    responses, perhaps angered at others .. but .. what the hell.

    Bubba

    You'd be risking more than you know, Mike.
    
    My sister's hobby is demolishing mortal men between meals.
    
    Kris

    She's a model.  She's single.  She makes an order of magnitude more
    cash than I will ever hope to just for showing up at a studio with a 
    pulse.  
    
    What she can get away with...
    
    Kris

    As to "justifiable" ... hummmm ... I was thinking about Hatashita-san's
    scenario  and got to thinking ... if anyone said anything like that to
    one of my daughters ... I think that I would come unglued .. I don't
    know what I would do, but, it would not be a pretty sight, and, I could
    care less if anyone said that it was/was_not "justified".  The anger
    would be uncontrollable.

    Bubba