Parking lot incident

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, MG got out safe... this time!

Something that hasn't been mentioned in the last 180 posts is what could have happened after MG drew his .380. What if, upon seeing a gun pointed at him, this bully had reached around and pulled out his .45? Here is MG sitting in the driver's seat with this bully standing at the door. MG has a clear COM shot with his .380. OTOH, the other guy had an easy head shot at MG through the window.

I have seen a few posts here where the "Good Guy" is the first one to draw. Of course I believe they felt threatened enough to do so, but please, for the sake of your own life, remember that carrying a concealed weapon is not the sole domain of us level-headed, honest, law-abiding citizens. This guy has already proven himself to be unstable and irrational. If this other guy in the parking lot had a gun and used it, MG's widow or heirs would now own a chain of pawn shops! MG didn't get away unscathed because he was smart. He got away because he was lucky. Sooner or later, luck runs out!

If you are going to draw first against someone who appears to be unarmed, you better be right!

Scott
 
Last edited:
I've been in a few fist fights with idiots back in younger days...

... and generally speaking, they did not result in great bodily harm to either side. Black eyes, bloody noses, cut lips, etc, yes, but no serious bodily harm and no death.

If weapons are not brought into play, it's hard to argue that you felt your life was at risk. Use of a gun to prevent a butt-whipping might be hard to justify.

Depending on the degree of the OP's physical handicap, the officers could have decided the potential force disparity constituted a seriously elevated threat. However, by the OP's account, they didn't arrest the road rager, either.

I'm frankly amazed that an event that led up to a firearm being pointed at a person didn't result in at least one arrest, either the road rager for posing a threat that justified a firearm presentation in SD, or the OP for pointing a firearm at a human without justification.

Something here just does not compute.
 
noelf2 said

Quoting me:
Just because the police didn't arrest the OP in this instance, doesn't mean that a DA couldn't decide to charge him later.

Well that's a stretch. Highly unlikely to the point of being kinda silly. Can you give an example of such a thing?
Click to expand...

Yeah, we haven't had any recent examples of DA's opting for charges after the police originally made no arrest (cough) Oklahoma pharmacist (cough)....
 
Last edited:
what could have happened after MG drew his .380
Click to expand...

Are we sure it was a 380? Or are we guessing? Seriously, I thought I read this whole thread and didn't see that it was a 380. Darn, if he only had a 380 then he certainly shouldn't have drawn it when he was threatened. I mean, people only carry 380s because they feel good in the pocket and give them a good reason to wear a cool belt, not that it should ever be used in any situation, right? :rolleyes::rolleyes:

or the OP for pointing a firearm at a human without justification.
Click to expand...

Here we go again.... Another one that wasn't there but knows it wasn't justified. You aren't qualified to make that judgment. Neither am I.
 
If you're going to quote people, noelf2, you should at least understand the quote

Which you either failed to comprehend, or intentionally chose to disregard.

The point was, either the OP was justified, in which case the road rager should have been arrested, or else the OP was not justified, in which case he should have been arrested.

The fact that the cops made no arrests after the incident escalated to a weapon drawn and direct threat made just does not make sense.
 
Yeah, we haven't had any recent examples of DA's opting for charges after the police originally made no arrest (cough) Oklahoma pharmacist (cough)....
Click to expand...

OK, from a literal sense, you got me. Really looking for something more relevant to the OP's situation though, i.e. pointing a gun, not arrested, then DA goes after him anyway.
 
Does this gun come in any other caliber than .380?
Click to expand...

You didn't get it. I'll help you. I was poking fun at your irrelevant assertion that a 380, versus another caliber, somehow changes things. :rolleyes:
 
Nope, been here since the very beginning of this thread. The details of his gun were so irrelevant to me given his situation, that it didn't even register. Didn't (still don't) see how the caliber is important. All I remembered about that detail was "keltec". He could have a 9mm and the other guy pulls a 50GI. Irrelevant! Since his gun was already trained on the aggressor, then the aggressor would be sort of stupid to reach back and pull his gun too (well, the aggressor was kind of stupid or he wouldn't be an aggressor, I digress, all the more reason to ensure you train your gun on an aggressor before he can do harm). At that point, the aggressor must be willing to take a couple in the chest/neck/head region first. Didn't seem likely that the scenario could reach your imagined conclusion given the OPs description.

Does anyone here actually think that they'll not pull their weapon when they need it (just picture a situation that you feel you would need to pull your weapon), and would have second thoughts because of the caliber you carry versus the caliber the BG "might" be carrying (I mean, besides scotta)? :confused::rolleyes:
 
If we can get this thread to stretch 100 pages long
Click to expand...

Will throw in my .02 for the 100 page cause:)

Seems like some pepper spray would have been ideal. I don't like relying on a gun for protection in all unforeseen situations since most might not require a gun. It's as if it's the gun or nothing with some scenarios I see posted here, but I usually have a hammer/crescent wrench(yeah I'm a mechanic so it's not outside the realm of possible) etc in the car since there aren't too many intrusive laws against hammers/wrenches. Maybe an intermediate level of self-preservation might be a reasonable alternative for next time?
Mace for the console or something along those lines?
 
Last edited:
Even Better

Tear gas gernade out the window then roll up the window. Fox Labs makes tear gas gernades we can get from our vendor, says law enforcement use only though lol.
 
He has enough of a disability to get a handicapped parking pass, and there was a man acting irrationally, shouting threats and beating on his car window, physically attacking his car even though not (yet) his person, while he was blocked from escaping fore and aft. It seems like a pretty dicey situation to me - I'm not sure that whatever amount of fear he felt was irrational. That fear is contained in the parenthetical word. If his fear is found to be "reasonable" your succeeding sentences don't hold up. We all know that going to court has its own risks, but I wouldn't bet the mortgage money that OP would lose in a Florida court. (This from a lifelong Florida resident who has his CCW permit, read the laws and rules, and reviewed them again today.)
Click to expand...

My state Delaware has a very similar law to the Florida stand your ground law regarding the use of deadly force. A few years ago an older gent was looking out his back window heard breaking glass, and saw some one climb into his neighbors house back window. The neighbor was out of town for a week. This gent went outside gun in hand and waited, a few minutes later he saw some one climb out and yelled halt or I will shoot. The 14 year old burgler hands filled with a computer, turned around and our hero shot him 2x in the chest dead. When the police arrived the gent claimed he thought the boy had a gun. The police arrested him, BUT the Attorney General later declined to procede to trial and charges were dropped.

To me this was cold blooded murder. The AG didnt see it that way, that was Jane Brady a conservative republican. Today we have a liberal democrat named Biden in charge...... I wouldnt want to bet on the same outcome... even though the law is still the same.
 
Seems like some pepper spray would have been ideal.
Click to expand...

He would have to roll down his window, well enough to ensure that some of it didn't hit him as well. Rolling down the window wouldn't be a smart move. However, it would be entertaining to see something like that happen. Guy rolls down window a little to pepper spray an aggressor, and they both end up coughing and crying...:D:D:D
 
I doubt the Florida law needs glass broken before it could be called an attack. That seems only to be a requirement in the minds of some people and not based on any law or definition of an attack.
Click to expand...

What the law does say is that...
...a person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if ... the person ... was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle.
Click to expand...

I surmised that breaking the glass would meet the threshold. Does any reasonable person really beleive that merely pounding on the back widow without an implement would qualify as having started the process of forcefully entering the car?

Point is, I draw and point before the glass is broken.
Click to expand...

At that point what we have is an argument. Here's what it says on the Florida state website about that:

Never display a handgun to gain "leverage" in an argument. Threatening someone verbally while possessing a handgun, even licensed, will land you in jail for three years. Even if the gun is broken or you don't have bullets, you will receive the mandatory three-year sentence if convicted. The law does not allow any possibility of getting out of jail early.
Click to expand...

Do you think it's appropriate for a police officer to draw and point his/her gun in anticipation of an attack? What's the difference?
Click to expand...

Police officers operate under different sections of the code. They are permitted to carry openly, and they may point guns under circumstances in which citizens may not.

OP believed he was in imminent peril.
Click to expand...

Necessary, but not at all sufficient. The litmus test also includes the determination of whether a reasonable person, knowing what the OP knew at the time and under the same circumstances, would have held that belief. Simply believing it doesn't cut it.

To help people like the OP, the Florida Legislature saw fit to help the invesigators and jurors make that determination when they amended the law to say that a person is presumed to have that reasonable belief if an assailant is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully breaking in to his car. You can bet your boots they wouldn't have seen the need to do so had there not been issues with people having had there cars broken into and still having trouble convincing jurors that their fear had been reasonable.

The OP had pointed his gun and he WASN'T ARRESTED, because he WAS ATTACKED.
Click to expand...

Actually, we do not know why he hasn't been arrested. I'm happy that he hasn't, but he could have been and could still be.

Some think that drawing means you must shoot. I find that idea to be pure BS.
Click to expand...

We agree on that.

In most states, the law and case law hold that one may not produce, exhibit in a threatening manner, point, draw, display---however they happen to phrase it--- a gun unless one is engaged in an act of lawful self defense. That certainly does not mean that one can fire if the threat dissipates. It also does not qualify as having used deadly force, in most places.

People have gotten into a lot of trouble about this in the past in a lot of places--so much so that the Texas legislature amended the law to specify that pointing a gun does not constitute the use of deadly force and to permit it under some circumstances when force is justified. In Arizona, pulling a gun on someone who was actually pushing you around could, until recently, get you locked up for aggravated assault, and the legislature decided to change that. Then governor Napolitano vetoed the bill, but governor Brewer has signed it into law.


__________________
 
Posted by noelf2: Didn't seem likely that the scenario could reach your imagined conclusion given the OPs description.
Click to expand...
Why do most of us chose to carry a concealed weapon? It is precisely because we never know who is carrying a weapon or how they intend to use it. BG's don't walk around with T-shirts saying, "I have a gun! Don't make me angry or I will use it on you!"

We already know the guy is a bully. He has demonstrated that he is definitely irate and probably a wee bit unstable. Why on earth would you NOT consider him to be armed? You know what they say, "NEVER ASSUME!"

Scott
 
The 14 year old burgler hands filled with a computer, turned around and our hero shot him 2x in the chest dead. When the police arrived the gent claimed he thought the boy had a gun. The police arrested him, BUT the Attorney General later declined to procede to trial and charges were dropped.
Click to expand...

What if it read like this:

"The 28 year old burgler hands filled with a computer, turned around and our hero shot him 2x in the chest dead. When the police arrived the gent claimed he thought the boy had a gun. The police arrested him, BUT the Attorney General later declined to procede to trial and charges were dropped."

Would that still be cold blooded murder? Just trying to figure out if your emotions help to shape your opinion. The AG didn't see it your way, maybe because there's more to the details than we're all privy to..? Maybe the shooter DID think he saw a gun. Jumping to conclusions without all of the facts doesn't help anyone, and opinions are just opinions.

To me this was cold blooded murder. The AG didnt see it that way, that was Jane Brady a conservative republican. Today we have a liberal democrat named Biden in charge...... I wouldnt want to bet on the same outcome... even though the law is still the same.
Click to expand...

I think you are vilifying the wrong person here. I tend to dislike a robber more than the robbee that shoots him. I doubt there would be a different outcome when only facts considered, versus emotions (but that's my opinion which is of equal standing to yours and anyone else's).
 
Why on earth would you NOT consider him to be armed? You know what they say, "NEVER ASSUME!"
Click to expand...

Wow, I don't know where that came from. I would never assume that the nutjob wasn't armed, nor did I intend to imply that in any of my posts. I assume the worst in a situation like that, which is why I had better point my gun before he does. What I don't assume to do is worry about the caliber of his gun. That's something that you do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top