My n***a

[8mpg]

You're screwed because you could have escaped.


Those guys are lucky that wasn't AlP and Mike!

I dont think its a gamble at all. You do not have to retreat when you are threatened.

[Gear_Jammer]

So if when he drove to the end of the street, and got out to look at his car, that when all 7 of them ran up on him screaming threats and fully intent on doing him bodily harm, that HE would have been the one who "attacked" them?

But that's not what happened. He got out of the car with the bat in his hand. To make it worse, he started walking towards them in a clear effort to beat some A$$. At that point it could be argued that either (1) he became the attacker because he approached them with a weapon andwendy hadn't brandished any weapons; or (2) it become mutual combat, so you're no longer a victim.

So you don't have the right to call the cops, and report a crime at the scene? Are you telling me that those criminals would not have attacked him if he got out of his car to make that phone call?

You absolutely have the right to do that, but based on the fact that the guy was screaming and walking after the car, you're a dumbass to exercise that right. Take all of the macho man BS out of the equation. Wouldn't you agree that based on the whole situation that it would have been smarter for him to drive a street or 2 over and call the cops? Sure...it wouldn't feel as good as going yard with those idiots' melons, but there's 0% you could be charged with a felony if you just drive away.

Please don't misunderstand me. I might just have done the same thing Babe Ruth did in that video. I'm just playing devil's advocate when it comes to the legal aspects of it.

[ThreeFingerPete]

But that's not what happened. He got out of the car with the bat in his hand. To make it worse, he started walking towards them in a clear effort to beat some A$$. At that point it could be argued that either (1) he became the attacker because he approached them with a weapon andwendy hadn't brandished any weapons; or (2) it become mutual combat, so you're no longer a victim.



You absolutely have the right to do that, but based on the fact that the guy was screaming and walking after the car, you're a dumbass to exercise that right. Take all of the macho man BS out of the equation. Wouldn't you agree that based on the whole situation that it would have been smarter for him to drive a street or 2 over and call the cops? Sure...it wouldn't feel as good as going yard with those idiots' melons, but there's 0% you could be charged with a felony if you just drive away.

Please don't misunderstand me. I might just have done the same thing Babe Ruth did in that video. I'm just playing devil's advocate when it comes to the legal aspects of it.

I didn't say that guy should have shot them.
Someone asked:
"lets say you were had a chl, lets say this happened to you.
you get out of your car, they come at you, you open fire.
would the law be on your side here?
not trying to incite a flame war for whatever reason, just curious."

That was the situation I was replying to. If you are being accosted by 7 angry and violent adult men, that is a reasonable time to employ your firearm.

[roliath]

My Remington 12 guage loaded with 7+1 of bean bags would have had one Hell of a time!

okay, so to throw another wrench in it. what if he got out with that 12 + bean bags and shot one or two (or all I don't care). you'd still be in trouble if the law got involved right?

[Gear_Jammer]

I dont think its a gamble at all. You do not have to retreat when you are threatened.

Bullshit you don't. If you have a chance to avoid using deadly force, you have to retreat or else potentially face charges. Plus, legally speaking, I would argue that he wasn't threatened. As I previously mentioned, he was the one that drove off and was free to escape. Rather than do that, he jumped out of his car and went after them with a weapon.

[ThreeFingerPete]

Bullshit you don't. If you have a chance to avoid using deadly force, you have to retreat or else potentially face charges. Plus, legally speaking, I would argue that he wasn't threatened. As I previously mentioned, he was the one that drove off and was free to escape. Rather than do that, he jumped out of his car and went after them with a weapon.

What should be done about the crimes committed against him / his property?

[ThreeFingerPete]

okay, so to throw another wrench in it. what if he got out with that 12 + bean bags and shot one or two (or all I don't care). you'd still be in trouble if the law got involved right?

Things get really tricky involving less than lethal weapons as a civilian.

[Gear_Jammer]

I didn't say that guy should have shot them.
Someone asked:
"lets say you were had a chl, lets say this happened to you.
you get out of your car, they come at you, you open fire.
would the law be on your side here?
not trying to incite a flame war for whatever reason, just curious."

That was the situation I was replying to. If you are being accosted by 7 angry and violent adult men, that is a reasonable time to employ your firearm.

I think you're missing a big part of my argument. You're not being accosted once you are able to escape, chose not to, and then go after them. If the idiot hit his car, he immediately stopped and got out to survey the damage, they attacked him, he went to his car, got the bat and then hit them with it, that could be a whole different story. That's all 1 event. In the video there's actually 2 events - the initial attack (jumping on and hitting his car) and then a separate event that occurred at the end of the block.

[Gear_Jammer]

What should be done about the crimes committed against him / his property?

Press criminal charges against him.

[ThreeFingerPete]

I think you're missing a big part of my argument. You're not being accosted once you are able to escape, chose not to, and then go after them. If the idiot hit his car, he immediately stopped and got out to survey the damage, they attacked him, he went to his car, got the bat and then hit them with it, that could be a whole different story. That's all 1 event. In the video there's actually 2 events - the initial attack (jumping on and hitting his car) and then a separate event that occurred at the end of the block.

No, I understand. It could be argued that it didn't occur to him to see if there was any damage until ~200' down the street. By them walking towards him after he drove to the end of the block, they are escalating the situation.

[Gear_Jammer]

No, I understand. It could be argued that it didn't occur to him to see if there was any damage until ~200' down the street. By them walking towards him after he drove to the end of the block, they are escalating the situation.

True, but the fact remains that's not what happened. Assuming the first part was true, it's clear that he got out of the car with the bat in his hand and immediately started walking towards them. I don't think he ever even looked at his car. The fact that he got out of his car with the bat already in his hands makes me think he knew the shit was about to hit the fan. In that case, the group clearly started the fire, but the guy with the bat threw lighter fluid on that fire.

[ThreeFingerPete]

True, but the fact remains that's not what happened. Assuming the first part was true, it's clear that he got out of the car with the bat in his hand and immediately started walking towards them. I don't think he ever even looked at his car. The fact that he got out of his car with the bat already in his hands makes me think he knew the shit was about to hit the fan. In that case, the group clearly started the fire, but the guy with the bat threw lighter fluid on that fire.

My statements weren't directed at the video. My statements were directed at Roliath's question about a CHL holder's actions. I.E., instead of pulling a bat, how could the situation have been different.


If a CHL holder had driven to the end of the block then got out to survey the damage while calling the cops, and those guys attacked him, he would have been well within his rights to stop the threat. That was my entire point.

[SS Junk]

My statements weren't directed at the video. My statements were directed at Roliath's question about a CHL holder's actions.


If a CHL holder had driven to the end of the block then got out to survey the damage while calling the cops, and those guys attacked him, he would have been well within his rights to stop the threat. That was my entire point.

And no video evidence you'd probably be fine. With the video you would be screwed.

[ThreeFingerPete]

And no video evidence you'd probably be fine. With the video you would be screwed.

Not a chance.

Guy gets out of car while on the phone to the police, 7 guys run up on him while screaming threats. Driver pulls gun and tells them to back up, they advance and the driver ends the threat. 7 people is a mob.

[Gear_Jammer]

My statements weren't directed at the video. My statements were directed at Roliath's question about a CHL holder's actions. I.E., instead of pulling a bat, how could the situation have been different.


If a CHL holder had driven to the end of the block then got out to survey the damage while calling the cops, and those guys attacked him, he would have been well within his rights to stop the threat. That was my entire point.

The fact that the guy has a bat or a gun with a license doesn't change my legal arguments whatsoever. Just because you're licensed to have the weapon you chose to use doesn't absolve you of any potential liability. If a CHL holder in that situation drives to the end of the block, gets out with it in his hands and starts walking up the street towards the other guys, he's just as wrong as the guy with the bat in the video. If the CHL holder drove to the end of the block, got out to look at the damage and/or call the cops while unaware that the guys were still coming after him, got attacked and ended up shooting 1 or more of then, the yes, he could potentially be cleared of all charges as that's clearly self-defense.