Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We all know that we live in different times these days. Deadly violence is common.
Do we all know this? What I know is that, globally, we're living in the safest, least deadly, least war ridden time in human history. I also know that in the US in 2013, violent crime is low - for instance, we're set to have the lowest murder rate in over 100 years.
I am armed when awake, 100% of the time, and trained(relics of a past life.) Would I shoot someone over mere property? No way. I would give it to them. As long as they took it and left, that would be the end of it. Of course, my wife knows to bail out of the vehicle if that situation occurs(still highly unlikely if one has any situational awareness at all, and even less likely due to where we live), so it is highly unlikely that worrying about her being taken would be a concern for me. (Having her in the car with them would not be a plus, for certain.) Now, if one of the jackers or both give me the impression that they are in it for more than the car, someone will die. Maybe all of us, maybe just me, hopefully just them. Had I no training or experience, I would simply have to hope the car was all they wanted, or plan to die attempting a defense without the tools I needed for the job. Which is what happened to poor Mr. Friedland. He attempted a job he was not prepared to succeed at, and the predictable happened. Of course, being newlyweds(edit: I read somewhere that they were recently married, although the story linked to by the OP does not say so), I doubt they had gone over what she should do if they were carjacked, so he was in a bit of a bad spot. No man feels more protective and has more to prove than a new husband, and this was the precise person the jackers chose to target. There was little hope for any result other than the one that happened.
It is sad, and it won't be the last such story, as the scum know very well what they are about, and usually pick out victims with a fair degree of predatory cunning. Every predator knows how to cull a weak member of the herd. They don't attempt to carjack the fit guy who notices what is going on around him and is wearing clothing that possibly hides a weapon. They look for the guy or gal who is walking with their head down or who is completely absorbed in a companion(like most newlyweds) or phone, and move in and strike before the prey even knows they exist. They do not want a fight, they want the shiny thing they intend to steal. And 90+% of the time, they plan to get it with mere bluster and surprise. It's when you force them into a fight that the gun becomes more than a prop. They no more intended to go there than the person getting shot did. But it happens, most of the time because the perp is as stressed as the victim. 90+ percent of these stories could be avoided if folks were simply aware of their surroundings and had a basic understanding of what to watch for. The other part of 99.9% could be handled with a weapon and the training to use it effectively. And .1% of the time, it is a bad day, the perp gets lucky, and a guy buys the farm, no matter how good he is. Sometimes things just are meant to be, and nothing in this world will change it. But most of the time, chance favors the prepared mind.
Last edited by countryboy73; 12-21-2013 at 09:32 PM..
Also I'd like to say that outside of bad hollywood action flicks and adolescent fantasies, when there two armed assailants with the drop on you, it can only go bad for you if you do anything stupid. This is especially true if they have guns (though imo, knives are probably even harder to disarm). The only rational response is to give them what they want. Your property is not worth your life; you can get the former back but not the latter.
I know that women always comment about how they need men to protect them. In this particular case, I do believe that if the man's protector instinct and manly/aggressive instincts DID NOT kick in, the husband would still be alive.
Obviously, this eliminates the opinion that size has anything to do with being able to protect, but that horse has been beaten to death.
More pressing, is would you really want a man to die for you in this situation, or would you rather die for him? Would women take a bullet for a man? Or would you rather the man be 'less manly' in which case I strongly reaffirm I believe he'd still be alive.
I am reminded of the short story "Houston Houston Do You Read?" by James Tiptree, Jr. (actually the pseudonym of a female author.) In the story, three astronauts from 20th century American find themselves transported to a future where men have gone extinct and only women exist. The women reproduce through cloning. The narrator eventually realizes that the women wish to study the men and euthanize them. While begging for his life, he tries to assert the worthiness of men in general. He says, "We protected women." One of the women counters this with, "Yes, but largely, you were protecting women from other men."
No, you made a distinction between the maternal and the paternal.
Quote:
I still think there's something more primal about the maternal protective instinct. In most mammal species it is the mother who does the raising and is responsible for the safety of the young. Mongamous or relatively mogamous species like humans and birds being the main exceptions.
[/quote]
As you did again. What are you, a Family Court judge?
Yes...I still think the strongest protective
instinct in nature is that of a mother for her child. In humans, I would say a
father protecting his child is probably almost or just as strong too.
Yes. I wouldn't take a bullet for a husband, but I would for my adult son, even though he's bigger and stronger than me.
I am reminded of the short story "Houston Houston Do You Read?" by James Tiptree, Jr. (actually the pseudonym of a female author.) In the story, three astronauts from 20th century American find themselves transported to a future where men have gone extinct and only women exist. The women reproduce through cloning. The narrator eventually realizes that the women wish to study the men and euthanize them. While begging for his life, he tries to assert the worthiness of men in general. He says, "We protected women." One of the women counters this with, "Yes, but largely, you were protecting women from other men."
She was absolutely right. I had a huge argument not too long ago on CD with a poster who insisted that men are there to protect women.
Protect us from what? Usually other men.
I have not read any of the news articles on this but while reading these posts I've kind of gotten the idea what happened but there is one thing that confuses me.
Why would someone have to try to "protect" his wife in this kind of situation? Perhaps my question comes across as harsh but I'm not the best at wording things. Actually terrible at putting thoughts to words. But I mean, if a carjacker was demanding someone to get out and give them the car, wouldn't you think that the wife would be able to get out on her own? Does the man have to physically assist the lady in that kind of situation? I would think the thing to have done would have been to tell her "just get out of the car" as you are in the process of doing the same. I think that is all the assistance that would have been needed. I know if I was the passenger in a vehicle that was getting jacked I will pretty much guarantee opening that door and hightailing it out of there.
Or was the wife handicapped? Unable to think on her own for some reason? I could perhaps see that as being a reason. Or if they had a baby in the back.
IMO, if someone has a gun on me, they can have whatever it is that I own which they want. They build new cars every day. It could be a knife as well. Heck they wouldn't really need to show a weapon at all, that car, wallet, watch etc would be theirs. They make more. I have insurance.
I protect myself, my family, and maybe other children. Mostly, I'd only protect & would risk my life only for those would do the same for me. It's not my job to protect another adult whether it be a man or a woman. Most women want to be equal except when it doesn't benefit them. I see them as being 100% equal, so in a bad situation, it's children first, and then every man and woman for themselves, and not children & women first...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Now, if one of the jackers or both give me the impression that they are in it for more than the car, someone will die. Maybe all of us, maybe just me, hopefully just them. Had I no training or experience, I would simply have to hope the car was all they wanted, or plan to die attempting a defense without the tools I needed for the job. Which is what happened to poor Mr. Friedland. He attempted a job he was not prepared to succeed at, and the predictable happened. Of course, being newlyweds(edit: I read somewhere that they were recently married, although the story linked to by the OP does not say so), I doubt they had gone over what she should do if they were carjacked, so he was in a bit of a bad spot. No man feels more protective and has more to prove than a new husband, and this was the precise person the jackers chose to target. There was little hope for any result other than the one that happened. 
