Ohio Barber Confronts White Man Walking Around Black Neighborhoods Carrying Guns

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Your opinion?

  • It's his right.

  • It's his right but he shouldn't do it.

  • There's nothing wrong with it at all.


Results are only viewable after voting.

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,587
7,036
136
Perhaps he just educated that neighborhood on what their rights are? Sometimes you have to shock people to get them to wake up.

I agree that constant exposure to the abnormal is an effective way of forcing that behavior to become "normal", but there are intangible and fluid limits that various demographics, with varying levels of acceptance/rejection, whether micro or macro, will put up with at a certain point in the time line. The gay rights movement is an example of that.

However, I doubt that was the case in this particular instance. I doubt that was the intent of the armed individual. And if it was his intent, he surely could have done it in a non-threatening manner. Instead, he chose to make a spectacle of himself, and an alarming one at that.

The logical conclusion to his actions is that an arms race of sorts would be started in the area he was "patrolling", where the only folks gaining any kind of advantage in the situation is the NRA and the folks who sell firearms for a living in that locale. A bad thing as IMO, more guns = more chances of them being misused/abused.

There are times and places where open display is taken for granted and considered non-threatening and "the norm".

In this situation, given what was posted, it was def not the "norm" and it must have upset quite a few people in the process.

In essence, a really shithead thing to do, just as it would be to stare/glare at someone within eyesight of each other. ;)
 

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
15,742
1,472
126
Link ?

I have trouble believing that would go on longer than 5 minutes tops anywhere in the US.

This was less like the Breitbar-ACORN scandal, but more like a single event taken to be a statistically-significant "sign" or trend.

But two can play that game. I'd mentioned my personal "growth" in connection to the 1971 Christensen-Tiel cop-killings and the "Riverside Three" who were railroaded through three trials over some four years.

At that time, the Black Panthers were big news. They sported their "gun-advocacy" in photo-ops. In this So-Cal county, that played very large in public panic and perceptions. At one time around 1925, there had been a real KKK presence.

So the detectives simply rounded up three black guys who'd never met each other before their arraignment. They discounted black witnesses providing alibis for the three.
 

MongGrel

Lifer
Dec 3, 2013
38,751
3,068
121
This was less like the Breitbar-ACORN scandal, but more like a single event taken to be a statistically-significant "sign" or trend.

But two can play that game. I'd mentioned my personal "growth" in connection to the 1971 Christensen-Tiel cop-killings and the "Riverside Three" who were railroaded through three trials over some four years.

At that time, the Black Panthers were big news. They sported their "gun-advocacy" in photo-ops. In this So-Cal county, that played very large in public panic and perceptions. At one time around 1925, there had been a real KKK presence.

So the detectives simply rounded up three black guys who'd never met each other before their arraignment. They discounted black witnesses providing alibis for the three.

I'd agree of course, did seem more like an attempt at a photo op more than anything on that one that has been cherry picked a lot if I interpret that correctly.
 

HamburgerBoy

Lifer
Apr 12, 2004
27,112
318
126
Wait a minute, before you were arguing that what he did shouldn't be a threat or shocking to anyone, now you're saying he HAD to shock them to 'wake them up'.

How about he knew exactly what he was doing and it was inappropriate.

No, I didn't say that was his intent or that it is something that should be necessary. The fact that the barber called the police shows that the local residents were obviously fearful and allowing their CBD to take over. My point is that if they were better educated and more rational, they shouldn't have experienced that kind of fear, because it is very unlikely that the man posed any kind of real threat.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
27,529
37,073
136
Whatever point that barber and his friends were trying to make was completely ruined by the insults, threats, and threatening body language directed towards the pedestrian.

If you expect someone to not assume you are a thug based on how you look, isn't it a bit stupid and hypocritical to label someone a risk to the public and crazy based on how they look?

Right off the bat the barber tells the guy, and the cop, to fuck off. Way to stand up for decency and what's right pal, yeah that totally makes you look like a victim! I also like how he didn't let his temper and emotions undermine what could have been a far more mature and less confrontational encounter with the police. Great work there, truly.

I'm sure I don't know the full story, but from that video I think the barber seems to be the one trying to create a situation. Insult, intimidate and threaten those who wear protection, because that will surely convince them that their concerns over safety are unfounded. lol

Guy with the Tavor is a moron, less for the bible bullshit and more for the open carry IMO. Can you imagine the cops eyes slowly widening as he realizes he's talking to a holy roller who is currently wearing more weapons than he is? lol

FWIW: I walked past a black guy at Lowe's yesterday who was packin. He had what I'm pretty sure was a P226 at his side. Made it out safely and didn't notice any pools of blood, fleeing people, squad cars and SWAT everywhere.
 
Last edited:

HamburgerBoy

Lifer
Apr 12, 2004
27,112
318
126
I agree that constant exposure to the abnormal is an effective way of forcing that behavior to become "normal", but there are intangible and fluid limits that various demographics, with varying levels of acceptance/rejection, whether micro or macro, will put up with at a certain point in the time line. The gay rights movement is an example of that.

However, I doubt that was the case in this particular instance. I doubt that was the intent of the armed individual. And if it was his intent, he surely could have done it in a non-threatening manner. Instead, he chose to make a spectacle of himself, and an alarming one at that.

The logical conclusion to his actions is that an arms race of sorts would be started in the area he was "patrolling", where the only folks gaining any kind of advantage in the situation is the NRA and the folks who sell firearms for a living in that locale. A bad thing as IMO, more guns = more chances of them being misused/abused.

There are times and places where open display is taken for granted and considered non-threatening and "the norm".

In this situation, given what was posted, it was def not the "norm" and it must have upset quite a few people in the process.

In essence, a really shithead thing to do, just as it would be to stare/glare at someone within eyesight of each other. ;)

More guns does not = more chances of them being misused. If that was the case our gun crime rates would only be increasing, which obviously isn't happening. Him being a "spectacle" is unclear; silently walking with publicly bared arms is not a spectacle in my book. From what video there is of him speaking, he seems like a pretty calm dude, and if I saw him without the guns and sunglasses I'd probably assume he was a left-leaning hipster type.
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,944
126
More guns does not = more chances of them being misused. If that was the case our gun crime rates would only be increasing, which obviously isn't happening. Him being a "spectacle" is unclear; silently walking with publicly bared arms is not a spectacle in my book. From what video there is of him speaking, he seems like a pretty calm dude, and if I saw him without the guns and sunglasses I'd probably assume he was a left-leaning hipster type.

I heard him saying "check out my facebook".
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,323
48,589
136
No, I didn't say that was his intent or that it is something that should be necessary. The fact that the barber called the police shows that the local residents were obviously fearful and allowing their CBD to take over. My point is that if they were better educated and more rational, they shouldn't have experienced that kind of fear, because it is very unlikely that the man posed any kind of real threat.

Their response was entirely rational because the situation was highly unusual and the person had the ability to inflict a lot of harm. If you walk up and down the street with a gun, expect the police to be called to monitor you. This is common sense.

You seem to expect everyone else to cater to your perception. This won't happen.
 

HamburgerBoy

Lifer
Apr 12, 2004
27,112
318
126
This case is really no different from people making a big deal over others wearing a Google Glass or flying a drone in public. Just like there are a lot of people are mistaken in believing they have some inviolable right to privacy in public, there are people that think they have a right to not shit themselves when they see a scary gun. The only people with expectations of catering are people that call the police and try to get people arrested or removed for things that aren't illegal.
 

mysticjbyrd

Golden Member
Oct 6, 2015
1,363
3
0
Nuisance

A legal action to redress harm arising from the use of one's property.
The two types of nuisance are private nuisance and public nuisance. A private nuisance is a civil wrong; it is the unreasonable, unwarranted, or unlawful use of one's property in a manner that substantially interferes with the enjoyment or use of another individual's property, without an actual Trespass or physical invasion to the land. A public nuisance is a criminal wrong; it is an act or omission that obstructs, damages, or inconveniences the rights of the community.

Public Nuisance

The term public nuisance covers a wide variety of minor crimes that threaten the health, morals, safety, comfort, convenience, or welfare of a community. Violators may be punished by a criminal sentence, a fine, or both. A defendant may also be required to remove a nuisance or to pay the costs of removal. For example, a manufacturer who has polluted a stream might be fined and might also be ordered to pay the cost of cleanup. Public nuisances may interfere with public health, such as in the keeping of diseased animals or a malarial pond. Public safety nuisances include shooting fireworks in the streets, storing explosives, practicing medicine without a license, or harboring a vicious dog. Houses of prostitution, illegal liquor establishments, Gaming houses, and unlicensed prizefights are examples of nuisances that interfere with public morals. Obstructing a highway or creating a condition to make travel unsafe or highly disagreeable are examples of nuisances threatening the public convenience.

A public nuisance interferes with the public as a class, not merely one person or a group of citizens. No civil remedy exists for a private citizen harmed by a public nuisance, even if his or her harm was greater than the harm suffered by others; a criminal prosecution is the exclusive remedy. However, if the individual suffers harm that is different from that suffered by the general public, the individual may maintain a tort action for damages. For example, if dynamiting has thrown a large boulder onto a public highway, those who use the highway cannot maintain a nuisance action for the inconvenience. However, a motorist who is injured from colliding with the boulder may bring a tort action for personal injuries.

Some nuisances can be both public and private in certain circumstances where the public nuisance substantially interferes with the use of an individual's adjoining land. For example, Pollution of a river might constitute both a public and a private nuisance. This is known as a mixed nuisance.


Private Nuisance


A private nuisance is an interference with a person's enjoyment and use of his land. The law recognizes that landowners, or those in rightful possession of land, have the right to the unimpaired condition of the property and to reasonable comfort and convenience in its occupation.

Examples of private nuisances abound. Nuisances that interfere with the physical condition of the land include vibration or blasting that damages a house; destruction of crops; raising of a water table; or the pollution of soil, a stream, or an underground water supply. Examples of nuisances interfering with the comfort, convenience, or health of an occupant are foul odors, noxious gases, smoke, dust, loud noises, excessive light, or high temperatures. Moreover, a nuisance may also disturb an occupant's mental tranquility, such as a neighbor who keeps a vicious dog, even though an injury is only threatened and has not actually occurred.

An attractive nuisance is a danger likely to lure children onto a person's land. For example, an individual who has a pool on his property has a legal obligation to take reasonable precautions, such as erecting a fence, to prevent foreseeable injury to children.

Trespass is sometimes confused with nuisance, but the two are distinct. A trespass action protects against an invasion of one's right to exclusive possession of land. If a landowner drops a tree across her neighbor's boundary line she has committed a trespass; if her dog barks all night keeping the neighbor awake, she may be liable for nuisance.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,323
48,589
136
This case is really no different from people making a big deal over others wearing a Google Glass or flying a drone in public. Just like there are a lot of people are mistaken in believing they have some inviolable right to privacy in public, there are people that think they have a right to not shit themselves when they see a scary gun. The only people with expectations of catering are people that call the police and try to get people arrested or removed for things that aren't illegal.

People don't think they have a right to not shit themselves, they see someone acting in a manner out of the ordinary by publicly carrying and displaying deadly weapons. They act as anyone should, and call the cops.

I have more experience with firearms than most people and I am in no way afraid of them. I would call the police immediately if I saw someone acting that way. It's just common sense.

By the way you can complain about that all you want, but people will keep calling the cops on people who do things like this. Maybe they just need a wake up call to stop acting like assholes with their guns, huh? :)
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
82,854
17,365
136
More guns does not = more chances of them being misused. If that was the case our gun crime rates would only be increasing, which obviously isn't happening. Him being a "spectacle" is unclear; silently walking with publicly bared arms is not a spectacle in my book. From what video there is of him speaking, he seems like a pretty calm dude, and if I saw him without the guns and sunglasses I'd probably assume he was a left-leaning hipster type.


≠

Unicode 2260
 
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
And the day after the confrontation the two people seem to be getting things worked out.

"AKRON, Ohio — One day after a confrontation between a rifle-toting man and a barbershop owner went viral online, the two men involved in the dispute decided to talk under different circumstances.

Deone Slater and Daniel Kovacevic met Friday at Slater's Kangaroo Kutz barbershop on East Exchange Street. A day earlier, Slater had stopped Kovacevic in front of his store and became angry when Akron police said they were unable to do anything about Kovacevic's carrying of a large rifle as he walked Akron streets.

"I feel like we didn't meet in the middle, but I understood his position a little bit more and he understood my position a little bit more," Slater said. "I really just wanted to get in his head, see what he was about and see if he was dangerous."

http://www.cleveland.com/akron/index.ssf/2015/12/rifle-toting_man_akron_barbers.html

As well, the barber wasn't the first person in the city to be upset/wondering what was going on.

Several days earlier:

"AKRON, Ohio — Akron police and Akron City Schools officials are monitoring a man walking around the city with a rifle strapped across his back.

Police officers talked to the man at least once during the weekend and do not believe he is a threat, Akron City School Spokesman Mark Williamson said.

"We're aware of it, but it's more of an Akron police situation at this point," Williamson said, adding that the school district is working with the police to make the public is aware of the situation."

CVJOT27XAAAxfzs.jpg:large


http://www.cleveland.com/akron/index.ssf/2015/11/akron_schools_police_monitorin.html
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
27,529
37,073
136
I never cease to be amazed by the powers of of the Mighty Obama. That picture looks just like this one from 2008, when Bush was President.

I take it your eyes are brown. That or you are a quart low.

Nice catch, I remember thinking it looked familiar. Has that socialist, muslim, marxist, facist from Kenya been time traveling again?
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,587
7,036
136
More guns does not = more chances of them being misused. If that was the case our gun crime rates would only be increasing, which obviously isn't happening. Him being a "spectacle" is unclear; silently walking with publicly bared arms is not a spectacle in my book. From what video there is of him speaking, he seems like a pretty calm dude, and if I saw him without the guns and sunglasses I'd probably assume he was a left-leaning hipster type.

Agree with you in some ways. However, when you review my post that you quoted, you'd see that I was inferring about folks who would probably arm themselves in knee-jerk reaction to a perceived threat without having the necessary experience or training to handle their weapons safely and with good effect. In this regard, I think it surely would become a case of having more guns (in the hands of inexperienced owners) resulting in more cases of misuse/abuse.

I know a few folks who own firearms yet are very afraid to use them, even after having been down at the range a few times. You can often see folks just like that by observing the firing line at the range and watching them handle their weapons with white knuckle death grips, hesitancy and overtly flinching even before the hammer or pin drops. Kind'a funny, very scary to be around. That's the same kind of folks who would lose their situational awareness and absent-mindedly point their weapons up and down the firing line without even realizing what a threat they are to the other shooters on the line.

That's a formula for an increased chance of self-inflicted pain and agony, and more times than not, these are the folks who end up in the statistics column and the very folks whom I believe would arm themselves in haste and not take the time to familiarize and gain confidence in their use, care and responsibility of ownership.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
82,854
17,365
136
Apparently, some want to live in a shithole.

Well, this isnt specific to the thread, but as a general rule I'd rather clean up my home than move every time things start to turn sour.

Of course, the dipstick in the news is not doing that. He's just being an ass. He has neither the skills, brains, or balls to fix any serious problems in society.
 

Pipeline 1010

Golden Member
Dec 2, 2005
1,925
757
136
Feeling threatened by someone walking down the street carrying a weapon that could easily kill them is not irrational, it's the opposite.

No, it's irrational. Guys carrying a weapon on their back down the street for weeks at a time are statistically super unlikely to kill you. That makes it irrational to fear that these guys are going to kill you. Remember that this entire thread is about a guy who witnessed the gun carrier doing his thing peacefully for WEEKS. It is highly irrational to assume that someone would walk around with a visible gun for weeks and then decide it's go-time and start shooting people. I don't believe this has EVER happened EVER.

Sure you know that you're a good guy, but they don't know you. Also, everyone's a good guy until suddenly they aren't.

Should the guy in the lane next to you on the freeway feel threatened by you? You drive a 4,000 lb hunk of metal than can obliterate human beings at a mere yank of the steering wheel. Sure, you know you're a good guy, but they don't know you. Also, everyone's a good guy until suddenly they aren't. At any time you could decide this is it and swerve into the poor guy next to you.

It must be super scary to live in your world of fear, where anyone who owns/has/drives something that could kill you is a serious threat.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,323
48,589
136
No, it's irrational. Guys carrying a weapon on their back down the street for weeks at a time are statistically super unlikely to kill you. That makes it irrational to fear that these guys are going to kill you. Remember that this entire thread is about a guy who witnessed the gun carrier doing his thing peacefully for WEEKS. It is highly irrational to assume that someone would walk around with a visible gun for weeks and then decide it's go-time and start shooting people. I don't believe this has EVER happened EVER.

Yeah that's based on nothing.

And so long as we are talking about what sounds likely, people engaging in antagonistic behavior for extended periods of time with large amounts of people while carrying weapons have basically certainly ended up hurting or killing people in the past.

You have to remember that whether something is rational isn't based on whether or not you want it to be true.

Should the guy in the lane next to you on the freeway feel threatened by you? You drive a 4,000 lb hunk of metal than can obliterate human beings at a mere yank of the steering wheel. Sure, you know you're a good guy, but they don't know you. Also, everyone's a good guy until suddenly they aren't. At any time you could decide this is it and swerve into the poor guy next to you.

This is dumb reasoning and you know it. A person driving a car has the implied intent of transporting themselves somewhere. A person carrying a gun has the implied intent of potentially using that gun.

Of all the analogies that people constantly use to try and justify gun rights, comparison to cars is easily the stupidest.

It must be super scary to live in your world of fear, where anyone who owns/has/drives something that could kill you is a serious threat.

Good news, it isn't scary at all! Exercising common sense in the extraordinarily rare situation where some idiot is walking around carrying a gun and antagonizing people has literally never happened around me. If it did, I would call the police and have them investigate the situation without thinking twice. Apparently I'm in the huge majority on that issue, haha.

Your entire position relies upon the idea that people have no reason to feel threatened by someone acting strangely while carrying a deadly weapon. This is highly irrational.