He was an expert on shooting people.
Which, at best, makes him an expert on his own reaction to shooting people. It does not, by itself, qualify him to speak on how other people react.
He was an expert on shooting people.
Quote:
He was an expert on shooting people.[\Quote]
Which, at best, makes him an expert on his own reaction to shooting people. It does not, by itself, qualify him to speak on how other people react.
What it does do is show that more than one type of reaction is possible. If we believe the man who tells us he suffers emotional trauma from his actions on the street or battlefield are we not obligated to believe the man who tells us he feels only exhilaration or euphoria?
The fact that another reaction is evidently possible makes an emotional response to a righteous shooting a potential training issue rather than an innate human response.
Who exactly would be qualified to comment on such matters if Mr. Cooper is not?
lmao you guys are still debating psychology
Quote:
Many people believe that killing another human being in a justified situation is a cause for celebration. I'll buy the first round.
I won't be drinking with you. If I'm ever in that situation, and I hope I never will be, I expect I'll be happy to be alive, but I will never "celebrate" the killing of a fellow human.
What it does do is show that more than one type of reaction is possible. If we believe the man who tells us he suffers emotional trauma from his actions on the street or battlefield are we not obligated to believe the man who tells us he feels only exhilaration or euphoria?
The fact that another reaction is evidently possible makes an emotional response to a righteous shooting a potential training issue rather than an innate human response.
Who exactly would be qualified to comment on such matters if Mr. Cooper is not?
It's a shame she had to do it,,,
But I am glad she was prepared,,,
And that she had the guts to defend herself.
Hopefully she will be able to get past any guilt,,,
She did the proper thing under the circumstance she faced.
You asked why she should feel guilt. You were given a reason why a normal person might. Your question was answered. Nobody said it was the only possible reaction. That's your straw man.
How about somebody who actually studies human stress reactions and the reactions of people to events like having to shoot someone in defense of self and others.
Experts are not necessarily knowledgeable outside their own fields. Jeff Cooper was quite knowledgeable in his field, but that field was not psychology and the study of things like PTSD.
Here's an example. Paul Ragonese, long term police officer on the NYPD. Years of experience and training,multiple awards for lifesaving and heroism, yet when he had to kill someone in self defense his response was far from "hoist a cold one." And in his retelling he relates coming to understand other officers who had killed in the line of duty whose reactions mostly seemed to mirror his. It was the most common, the normal, reaction. (Sorry, no links. I have his book "Soul of a Cop" in my library.)
We are conditioned from a young age not to kill. A reaction can therefore be regarded as a normal event- even when you have an excellent excuse.
This is the comment that prompted me to weigh in. It assumes that she may feel guilt. I asked why she should feel guilt and stated that she should be exhilarated that she won. Admittedly my own wish.It's a shame she had to do it,,,
But I am glad she was prepared,,,
And that she had the guts to defend herself.
Hopefully she will be able to get past any guilt,,,
She did the proper thing under the circumstance she faced.
The Florida "Castle Doctrine" law basically does three things:
One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.
Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others. [This is an American right repeatedly recognized in Supreme Court gun cases.]
Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force.
It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them.
In short, it gives rights back to law-abiding people and forces judges and prosecutors who are prone to coddling criminals to instead focus on protecting victims.