Man Pulls Gun on Sam’s Club Customer.

Status
Not open for further replies.
FWIW. According to the officially accepted levine and marks 1928 IQ scale Moron was an accepted description of what we now refer to as extremely or very low.

IQ Range ("ratio IQ") IQ Classification
175 and over Precocious
150–174 Very superior
125–149 Superior
115–124 Very bright
105–114 Bright
95–104 Average
85–94 Dull
75–84 Borderline
50–74 Morons
25–49 Imbeciles
0–24 Idiots
Click to expand...

I believe that these fell into the 20-30% range. (lots of people.)



Bugs almost always followed 'what a maroon' with 'what an im-bess-ill' or 'Ignoranimus'. These accidental or intentional mispronunciations are sometimes known as 'archie-isms, in example

"This is a day that will live in infancy!"
Click to expand...
and the term 'maroon' when used in BB is clearly and obviously not meant in any sense other than referring to someone in the lowest percentage of intelligence.

Let whoever wants to re-write history and common sense foolishly do so but the facts clearly suggest it to be race baiting.

The guy is obviously suffering from some sort of dementia, or is within the 'dull or borderline' range, probably not a 'maroon' per bugs bunny.

If the truth matters to a person, they will search out the truth not in obscure and non-contextual sources, but will go right to the context and search for explanations that fit the situation, not explanations that fit the desired narrative.
 
Last edited:
FITASC said:
Exactly, they BOTH get to wear the Stupid hat for their moves.
Click to expand...
And the real tragedy for everyone is that a key anti-CCW argument is -- basically -- ordinary people are too stupid and untrained to be trusted to carry guns. All the favorable statistics and reasonable 2A arguments are quickly forgotten when some jack-dope pulls his gun on someone's hat, or someone shoots his foot off in a grocery store cuz he's carrying a loaded gun in the waistband of his sweatpants with no holster.

And then it's like "OK, so tell me again how letting people carry guns is a good idea?"
 
It sounds like there were two hotheads, neither suited for polite society. Pierce, the "victim," is even quoted as saying that he went out into the parking lot "to confront him again," after challenging an armed man to either shoot him or engage in a fist fight. Sheesh.

I thought maroon was a color. I hadn't come across the term as an escaped slave or their descendant until today.
 
TailGator said:
It sounds like there were two hotheads, neither suited for polite society. Pierce, the "victim," is even quoted as saying that he went out into the parking lot "to confront him again," after challenging an armed man to either shoot him or engage in a fist fight. Sheesh.

I thought maroon was a color. I hadn't come across the term as an escaped slave or their descendant until today.
Click to expand...

This is a good observation. We still need the facts to come out and the video evidence isn't necessarily needed as there were eye-witnesses. I think with such a polarized society right now, defusing situations is more important than "sticking to your guns" (pun intended).

If the guy actually pulled his handgun and threatened the guy (regardless of his non-physical response), I can't see this guy retaining his CCW permit. I'm not one to say he's a Red Flag case, but he definitely abused his right to CCW in public if the facts bear it out.

More to the point of Pierce, the victim. While he didn't back down, he was pretty antagonistic. At some point you just avoid and call security, it would have been a pretty easy situation to diffuse. It's not always about our right of "freedom of expression", we, unfortunately have to deal with some pretty unstable people in society and avoiding conflict is an important training aspect for any gunowner (not that Pierce was CCW, but was a simply the target of a mentally unstable guy).

ROCK6
 
The concealed carrier is eaten up with cheap political trash. A couple wearing those hats; going peacefully about their business, were too much for the guy. He should never be allowed to own a gun.

Folks at the extreme ends of the political spectrum sometimes believe they have a right to confront folks whose politics are opposite theirs.
 
It’s what you get when idiots are told day after day on “news” channels that freedom of speech is actually hate speech. Then you get someone that has no business with a firearm do something that could have gotten him killed.

He should be lucky to be alive and unarmed from now on. Likely not the case though and some day we will read another story about him where “someone” (after all we can’t have anyone in particular responsible) ignored “the warning signs”.

Anyone old enough to have watched looney tunes knows what bugs was referring to, the others watch the above “news” channels and “form their own narrative”, not based in reality.
 
He should never be allowed to own a gun.
Click to expand...
He should be lucky to be alive and unarmed from now on. Likely not the case though and some day we will read another story about him where “someone” (after all we can’t have anyone in particular responsible) ignored “the warning signs”.
Click to expand...

"Red flag" law?
Mental health review as a requirement to own a handgun?

I agree with you both, BTW...too many stupid, untrained, people with guns.
 
Folks at the extreme ends of the political spectrum sometimes believe they have a right to confront folks whose politics are opposite theirs.
Click to expand...

This is applicable to so much.

I have been a broncos fan for a number of years. I had just watched a particularly disappointing game. My wife insists that I wear a team shirt for the games we watch. (yes, it's mostly her that is the football fan.)

I'm antisocial and at times I have real problems with my temper. It had been an amazingly hard month. As soon as this game was over, I had to go out for groceries, still in my broncos shirt. well, I didn't realize that denver and KC were rivals, and i was in missouri. some young guy got in my face and yelled at me about my shirt. he nearly wet himself when i snarled at him.

it's REALLY dangerous to do things like this. it's possible that most impulse murders world wide occur over things like politics, art, religion, or morality.

If that guy hadn't melted down and hurried away, if he had stood his ground and pushed me even farther, I feel certain that it would have ended with me breaking him apart. My anti-seizure medication was doing awful things to me. This guy just randomly picked someone to harass, and my god, he picked someone who at the time was just plain dangerous.

This dipstick picked on someone who WAS dangerous, not just angry. The other guy followed him to his car after he melted and turned away from the confrontation.

This situation strikes me as being nearly identical to the one I had over a freakin football jersey, but the people and the culture were different. We are far more confrontational now. ordinary People used to understand fear and danger involving confronting strangers.
 
as much as we dislike the reality of things, sometimes one of 'us' goes bonkers. I feel it's a rare thing, but it does happen.
This also points up the wisdom of not escalating bad situations. Being flipped off is just not worth getting shot, and everybody now seems to be willing to play the "my life was threatened' card.
 
FireForged
Please remember that the bugs cartoon is very old and although I am sure the meaning is not intended to be be racial. Using a word which does have a historical meaning referring to slaves- can be taken the wrong way.

I used the word quite often as a kid from hearing it on the cartoons but sometime in the 90s I was cautioned about its historical meaning

Just food for thought
Click to expand...

sometimes we just over think things. Looking for offense when there was none intended has it's own cautions. Just food for thought.
 
sometimes we just over think things. Looking for offense when there was none intended has it's own cautions. Just food for thought.
Click to expand...

I was not offended, saw nothing offensive and took no affront to what was said

dismiss it if you like, use the term if you like, call it an exercise in overthinking (if you like). Its an issue that has been discussed for years with varying degrees of consensus and one which could potentially impact a person negatively in certain environments. That's my generally thought on the matter and my offering was intended to be good natured rolling of the eyes. Having people put words and inflections under a microscope is the world we live in and I simply prefer not to give someone an easy avenue to twist my words into something unintentionally insulting. I thought others here might feel the same and consider my caution to have some minor value. I see that I have likely misjudged but I stand by what I said. Good luck
 
Last edited:
If people knew the reported genesis of the song "turkey in the straw", the ice cream truck song, we'd be able to see something more impressive than a sixteen car pileup on an icy highway. Look it up, anyone can find it. But just like the first example it is a relatively unknown fact, so there's no real trigger.

I can picture in my mind ice cream trucks being shot at or burned if people only knew.
 
I may have followed the aggressor out to identify his car, license plate ect. I don't think
I would have confronted him if he was retreating. Like most of us here I would have been armed. I don't think it is prudent to draw on a drawn gun but if my life and my wife's life had just been threaten I just might make a move. I just hope I never have to find out.

As for the use of the word "maroon" why do we allow political correctness limit free speech. You should be allowed to say what you want but realize "while speech may be free, it still has social and legal consequences" .
 
Last edited:
There was an event in metairie LA that erupted and resulted in a death when a 'hero' followed a bad guy out of a store and made a public spectacle of taking down the license number.

Done discreetly that's a good enough idea, but just like anything else that we can do in life, it can trigger unwanted repercussions.

The safest thing to do when observing a situation like this is to do nothing and wait for the situation to resolve itself. many people can do so. Some people just can't help themselves, they have to get involved.


The smartest and safest thing that the MAGA hat wearer could have done was take the thing off and let it go. Toss the hat on the floor and walk away. Let the dozens of cameras scattered throughout the store and parking lot and the store security personnel do the job that they are intended to do.

Is anyone surprised that this happened? Politics has become polarizing and the MAGA hat has become a monster. Some people wear them just to make the other guys angry.
 
Two idiots posturing like children in a playground

If the "victim" wanted the fight he claims to have been looking for he had every justification to throw the first punch and well beyond. Even if he happened to have pushed the gun holder the gun holder had escalated the threat and he would have been justified in responding.

The gun holder whipped out his gun, expecting it to instantly compensate for something?, and was utterly embarrassed and unprepared for when the "victim" didn't cower in fear and repent.

All that's missing is a couple friends and the idiots telling them "hold me back, hold me back"
 
I'm not sure why you say that the unarmed man was justified in throwing the first punch since the guy had already backed down. when he realized that the guy with the gun wasn't going to shoot, he had no further fear of being harmed and thus had no justification to 'defend himself' with violence.

Maybe I misread something, but according to many laws I have studied, lethal force laws ignore who started the conflict. If the unarmed guy had started pounding on the guy with the gun, at that time, he had become the aggressor and was putting the other guy's life and safety in jeopardy. The guy with the gun, who now has a guy beating him up, may be so afraid of dying or having his brains knocked loose that he may have full justification for shooting the unarmed attacker. He will be legally justified in shooting the guy who followed him out to his car with the sole intention of beating the hell out of him. (he admitted that, right?)
 
Tennessee is complicated.

(b) a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force against another person when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.

(2) a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury, if:

(A) The person has a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury;

(B) The danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury is real, or honestly believed to be real at the time; and

(C) The belief of danger is founded upon reasonable grounds.

(
Click to expand...




(e) The threat or use of force against another is not justified:


(2) If the person using force provoked the other individual's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:

(A) The person using force abandons the encounter or clearly communicates to the other the intent to do so
Click to expand...

The place where the claim that pierce would have been innocent and that phillips could not have killed him at his car if he was brutally attacked falls apart at section B first paragraph. he has the right to be in the parking lot, as he was never told to leave. He was not committing a crime as he had holstered his gun and was actively seeking to leave the site of the confrontation. we cannot presume that the earlier crime of aggravated assault justifies a later use of force by the pierce against the phillips. It's over and past, and there are no legal grounds for pierce to pursue phillips in order to provoke a fight or attack him.

2 and A of the next paragraph clearly state that the phillips, who started the conflict but left the scene and no longer presented a threat, could, in fact, attack and kill the pierce if he should press an attack against him in revenge. That depends on the next paragraph.

A) The person has a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury;

(B) The danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury is real, or honestly believed to be real at the time; and

(C) The belief of danger is founded upon reasonable grounds.
Click to expand...


There are the laws, with a whole lot of editing of inapplicable wordage edited out.

This set of statutes essentially states that phillips had committed a crime of what should be aggravated assault, but the assault had ended and the crime was in the past. It states that if pierce had then threatened or attacked phillips, that is a new violation of law on his part and that phillips would be justified in either threatening or using deadly force, contingent on the threat being genuine, or at least so genuine in his mind that he believed that he had no choice.

An attorney and jury will have to decide whether he made that conclusion reasonably, or if he was just using it as an excuse. There must be genuine danger, or reasonable and provably reasonable danger.

These terms are pretty consistent in most of the stand your ground, castle, or other defense laws that I have read. My reporting of them here isn't to be taken as gospel as they are incomplete and edited from the original language and full context. Everyone here needs to read, learn, memorize, understandthe laws of their own state and municipalities and any other place that they may travel to. Don't depend on the cut and paste of an internet user. If you do take your information from anything other than official sources of the jurisdiction that you are currently in and commit a crime, you deserve whatever you get.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top