Sebade told deputies he had been drinking at the tavern around 1 a.m. when he decided to give a religious pamphlet discussing a "plan of salvation" to a woman in the parking lot, the report said. Sebade said he went to his Volkswagen van and tucked the pamphlet as well as a .22 Magnum revolver into his pocket.
Source: The Daily News
Yeah, that makes sense -- get a religious pamphlet and be sure to grab your gun on the way. I'm always sure to grab my pistol when I leave the house with one of Dawkins' books.
Shortly after he began talking to the woman, Sebade said, another woman angrily confronted him, putting her face near his. A man told him to get back into his van and leave, Sebade said.
Sebade took the gun out of his pocket and told the man that he is a "sovereign citizen," according to the police report. He was struck on the side of his head and fell to the ground. Sebade said he was climbing back to his feet when he fired his weapon at the man.
Sovereign Citizen? If this doesn't count as being deluded, I'm not sure what would.
The friend who was shot in the stomach should have done more than just knock Sebade to the ground if he was going to act at all. If a person pulls a gun on you, you have to assume they will use it -- and that means either not doing anything in the hope they change their mind or taking action so decisive that they can't act at all. Merely knocking that person to the ground is insufficient. As long as they are conscious, they are still a threat -- whether it's a gun they are holding or a Chick Tract.
I believe a lesson to be learned here is that when you are being proselytized to, you should pay close attention!
I would rather be shot in the stomach then have to read one of those Chick tracts. In fact … I’ld take three rounds in the head rather then have to listen to some drunken Jeebus fool rattle on about salvation and god’s plan for me.
Minor change: “still conscious” -> “still conscious and mobile” (if they’re restrained, they’re not a threat).
But I agree. The guy who got shot should have tied up the guy with the gun (or at the very least taken the gun).
>Yeah, that makes sense — get a religious pamphlet and be sure to grab your gun on the way.
This is EXACTLY what went through my head. The action demonstrated that he either understood his actions would be threatening (and merit an aggressive response), or that he simply intended aggression in a premeditated fashion.
>Sebade took the gun out of his pocket and told the man that he is a “sovereign citizen,” according to the police report. He was struck on the side of his head and fell to the ground.
I may not be reading this right—but I have to say that if I am, it sounds like the wingnut pulled the gun and the other guy hit him? Certainly anyone has a right to defend himself when someone pulls a gun (especially an unstable person); but I question the sanity of striking a guy who is holding a gun on me…? Totally the other man’s right. Perhaps unwise? I personally would probably have backed down from the pistol, regardless of how upset at the guy I might have been.
But in the end, this guy, Sebade sounds like a real piece of work. He had to have anticipated trouble, and why would anyone anticipate a problem just handing someone a tract? I mean, what must his demeanor have been like—if even he knew he’d get aggressive response?
Sometimes we get theists at AETV, in fact I have one now I’m dialoguing with, who get really defensive and offended and insulting and use any manner of aggressive communication to try and emotionally unhinge their opponent. The one I’m involved with currently called me a “coy little thing,” which is clearly a misogynistic, condescending phrase, intended to upset me. Rather than point this out, to which I likely would have received a disingenuous “you’re too sensitive” (even though he’s also dialoguing with Russell, and hasn’t used any pet phrases with him yet). The best response, I thought, was humor, so I just said: “Yep, that’s me, everybody’s little bunny pumkin’, Mr. puddin’ pants.” But the thing that interested me the most, I could not have asked, or I’d have been accused of ad hominem. So, I withheld, but I honestly was curious about what sort of social life this person must have. He consistently talked _at_, rather than _to_ anyone on the list. He consistently made assumptions about our motives and thinking—and dismissed all our attempts to assert his assumptions did not accurately represent our views or motivations. I even gave him examples that flew in the face of his assertions, but to no avail. He knew all about us—and if we didn’t agree with him, well, we’re just wrong and in denial.
It’s a little scary to realize how people can have such distorted models of others in their minds. But with any stereotypical thinking, this happens. So, in this guy’s case, it wasn’t just stereotypes about atheism (and I actually think he was an atheist. His assertions about his own positions left that ambiguous), but about women as well. His statement about “coy little thing” was an aggressive form of communication, an insult he intended to direct toward my womanhood. If a man would insult a woman during a discussion using a sexist insult—it’s not a statement about his opinion toward _this woman_. It’s a statement about his view of womanhood in general—women in general. Can you (I guess directed at the females in the audience) imagine being with a man who gets angry and uses demeaning passive-aggressive language to denigrate your entire sex as somehow not on equal terms? How can I consider someone my equal to whom I refer to as a “coy little thing”? That’s my way of letting you know I consider you beneath me, like a child or something I need to talk down to. It’s intended to demonstrate the man’s perspective of the woman as a being worthy of humiliation. That being said, I have to wonder, seriously, what his dating life is like—if this is his view of an acceptable method of relating to women with whom he’s supposed to be having an exchange of ideas.
The main thing that keeps me from getting ruffled by comments like this—which, thankfully and to most men’s credit are very rare—is that I understand that the motive behind the ad hominem is fear that one’s arguments are too weak to hold up on their own merits. When I see a person begin to hurl insults of this nature, to me, it’s the same as witnessing a chink in their armor. I realize at that moment they are trying to unhinge me, because they are near their own breaking point in their capacity to hold their ground rationally, and they want to throw me off kilter to buy some time to regroup by derailing the dialogue.
In other words, if we can just switch Tracie over to a sideline red herring of my sexist attitude where I can claim she’s too touchy and defensive, then I can get out from under her scrutiny, which, honestly at this point is starting to make me sweat. The worst thing I could have done was make an issue of his insult. The best thing was to simply ignore it and stick to the points—thus derailing his attempt to redirect the conversation away from having to defend his positions.
Just a tip on how to handle insults and why one might consider disregarding them. It’s like a child pitching a tantrum. When they’re not getting what they want, they try to by as annoying as possible. The more you ignore it, the more they freak out and escalate. The more they escalate, the more irrationally emotional they become, and ultimately they show themselves up as the crazy child they are, and you kept your cool the whole time and just chuckled at their inanity and public self-humiliation at their own hands. It’s extremely satisfying.
>Sometimes we get theists at AETV, in fact I have one now I’m dialoguing with,
Just to correct this–the guy I have now is ambiguous about his postition–whether he’s theist or atheist. But generally we get theists who write in to debate who do this.
Religion leads to violence? Whhhhaaaaaaatttt???
An important point: “sovereign citizen” is code used in militia and tax protesters circles. It refers to conspirationist misinterprations of the constitution that claims the IRS is an illegitimate organization, and that a ’sovereign citizen’ of the states rather than the federal government doesn’t have to pay taxes, or pay fealty to the federal government’s authority. The guy’s not just a random Christian. He’s part of the growing armed proto-fascist far right populism, and probably a dominionist as well given the way this encounter unfolded.
Apologize. Tell them you love Jesus too. Runaway.