At least 7 dead in WI shooting

[VerseD]

Found an interesting article by a Sikh professor who has experienced some of the tension of multiculturalism. He mentions discussions within his community of how to respond to the Oak Creek attack, and of whether Sikhs in America should broadcast that they are not Muslims and did not have anything to do with 9-11. But (1) Sikhs are opposed to hate crimes directed against any group, and (2) it might not make a difference.

As I have experienced it, the turban that Sikh men wear is the embodiment of a kind of difference or otherness that can provoke some Americans to react quite viscerally. Yes, ignorance plays a part and probably amplifies that hostility. But I increasingly feel that visible marks of religious difference are lightning rods for this hostility in ways that don't depend on accurate recognition.

I am not sure why the reaction can be so visceral -- perhaps because wearing a turban is at once so intimate and personal and so public? Walking around waving, say, an Iranian flag probably wouldn't provoke quite the same reaction. A flag is abstract -- a turban, as something worn on the body, is much more concrete and it therefore poses a more palpable (more personal?) symbol for angry young men looking for someone to target. Whether or not that target was actually the "right one" was besides the point for the Oak Creek shooter. . . .

I want to be clear that I am in no way suggesting Sikhs not wear turbans to avoid hostility. But I also don't think we should fool ourselves that incidents of this nature will be completely addressed purely by "education," nor should we presume that the shooter suffered from "ignorance." If the shooter turns out to have been what it's currently thought he was (that is, some sort of white supremacist), all that mattered to him was that he hated difference -- and saw, in the Sikh Gurdwara at Oak Creek, a target for that hatred.

Cultural diversity and the close proximity of many religious traditions is a new fact of life in the modern world, and especially in America, that did not exist fifty years ago, and that inspires a lot of fear and resentment in people as this change leaves them behind.

[Doogie2K]

Originally Posted by Vigil80

Sounds like a startled old man unfamiliar with local custom, nothing more. I doubt the monolithic Canadian Justice System would have been engaged. The "crazy motherfucker" - noted in the wry article as a "20-year police force vet" - was apparently not crazy enough to breach any laws.

Because he wasn't carrying. If he was carrying and he'd pulled his weapon, what's next? Probably they run the fuck away, but what if they stay and try to reason with him, because they don't want to turn their backs on a crazy man with a gun? Does he keep getting more upset and "threatened" over this?

Also, I'd love to hear from the two guys he encountered, because I wonder how "aggressive" they really were. Did they get all up in his shit, or did they just step slightly in front of him to get his attention so they could offer him some Stampede tickets? I'm not terribly inclined to trust his interpretation of events, given that his immediate instinct was to threaten to shoot people in one of the least-threatening areas in the entire city.

Bottom line: I think someone with his mentality should be entrusted with a weapon. Too many chances for a misunderstanding to end really badly.

Originally Posted by Bone

Not to defend him, but the difference between two youths aggressively asking you a question about local events and a mugging is just one whack on the head. Most muggings seem to start with an innocuous question to ease you into your personal space being invaded.

And, the guy is a cop, so his reaction to personal space being invaded is "back off". He's a victim of his own training, perhaps, that tells him that even 20 feet is too close when someone decides to hurt you. Does that mean he should have had his gun ready? I don't know.

Should he have pulled it based on what he wrote in his story? I say fuck no.

True enough, but I still don't feel like the immediate instinct should've been to reach for his weapon. Take a couple of steps back, sure, but why would he assume his life was in danger right away? I just don't understand it.

[Narradisall]

Shoot first, take a step back later?

[Vigil80]

Originally Posted by Doogie2K

True enough, but I still don't feel like the immediate instinct should've been to reach for his weapon. Take a couple of steps back, sure, but why would he assume his life was in danger right away? I just don't understand it.

Again, he's a cop. Seems to me they put their hand on their weapon if anything unexpected happens.

Given that, I'm especially unsure what the story is supposed to prove, because he'd still probably be armed even in a "police and military only" utopia. Keep calm and carry on?

Originally Posted by Doogie2K

I'm not terribly inclined to trust his interpretation of events, given that his immediate instinct was to threaten to shoot people in one of the least-threatening areas in the entire city.

Where in there does he threaten to shoot anyone? Lots of supposition with a little info, I think, along with a bunch of people definitely overreacting to one guy probably overreacting.

[Doogie2K]

Originally Posted by Vigil80

Where in there does he threaten to shoot anyone? Lots of supposition with a little info, I think, along with a bunch of people definitely overreacting to one guy probably overreacting.

Reaching for a weapon with intent to draw. Drawing a weapon is an implicit threat.

[Vigil80]

Which brings me back to my previous point. We don't know he intended to draw or point the weapon right away. As long as we're talking about what he might have done, he might have rested his hand on it, then continued with his "we have no need to talk to you, goodbye." It's what I'd expect a cop to do.

The more I think about it, perhaps the story and reactions uncover at least as many questions about anti-gun culture. "He thought about a gun! That means he's going to murder people!"

[Bone]

I agree with that assessment, Vigil. Police training would likely make him cover his weapon in case he needed it. A far cry from drawing it or even making it visible to the person in front of you.

[biosc1]

Originally Posted by Vigil80

The more I think about it, perhaps the story and reactions uncover at least as many questions about anti-gun culture. "He thought about a gun! That means he's going to murder people!"

But I never think about reaching for a gun when I feel threatened. Wouldn't even cross my mind to go from "These guys appear threatening to 'I need my gun'". There are so many 'in-betweens'.

On top of that, Calgary is one of the friendliest places on Earth (Minus the CoG'ers from there, of course).

[Bone]

Someone who is trained to deal with a dangerous encounter, though, would have that reaction as part of their training. They also usually have a better situational awareness than the average citizen.

Have you ever had a random encounter turn into a mugging? I have. At first, it looks no different than walking past someone and saying hi. When someone I don't know gets too close in my personal space, and especially if they act aggressively, I am no longer inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.

[Vigil80]

Originally Posted by biosc1

On top of that, Calgary is one of the friendliest places on Earth (Minus the CoG'ers from there, of course).

And Disney World is the happiest. I still saw some pretty sad or angry people while I was there, though.

Originally Posted by biosc1

But I never think about reaching for a gun when I feel threatened. Wouldn't even cross my mind to go from "These guys appear threatening to 'I need my gun'". There are so many 'in-betweens'.

I'm glad for you. I hope you're never in such a situation.

[VerseD]

I see some pretty clean examples here, not only in the Calgary story but in the reactions to it, for how America's often baseless neurotic impulse can cause and worsen violence.

[ClannerDelta]

Originally Posted by VerseD

I see some pretty clean examples here, not only in the Calgary story but in the reactions to it, for how America's often baseless neurotic impulse can cause and worsen violence.

You're gonna need to clarify.

[VerseD]

Like I mentioned earlier, habitual mistrust, fear, and anger towards others tends to remove people from the social fabric of our common humanity and to encourage a violent solution to insecurity. That could mean physical violence or humiliation or financial exploitation -- any act that ignores the identity of the other.

It is something I see more where people feel insecure than in any other circumstance, and it is something I see spelled out clearly in the case where an overly aggressive, "You been to the rodeo?" can compel a man to reach for his firearm. However well-rationalized the insecurity, that kind of preemptive violence is a totally inappropriate response.

[Bone]

Whereas I see no problem with situational awareness. The best training gives you the tools to deal with a situation as well as methods of de-escalation. I would love to live in a world where people don't randomly target others for violence, but as I and others have learned, it doesn't always work out that way.

Being prepared to resolve a violent situation is not the same as being violent.

[Vigil80]

Agreed, Bone.

It is also a separate issue, as far as I'm concerned.