Interesting thought…should we have a test for that and then register those who pass and deny CCW to anyone who fails?
I don’t disagree with your sentiment in general (CCW holders need to have control over their egos and emotions), but be careful what you call for, it could become a slippery slope.
I think it can be argued that there was a disparity of force, yes. I know you’re going to say that there was not a disparity of force and I will again say that it can be ARGUED that there was a disparity of force. It can also be ARGUED that she didn’t know if it was safe to stay inside the car. All of these lead to reasonable doubt. I appreciate your view on this, but I’ll wait to see what the actual court says.
You come across as having a pretty strong ego, I’m just letting you know because of the irony. I hope you can take it as constructive criticism, rather than an insult.
Thank you for engaging in the conversation!
So your suggestion to her would have been to stop in the middle of all that, look up some training materials, do some research, etc…? We are not going to agree on this. Let’s see how the courts work it out.
I will agree that calling the cops, and being labeled another racist Karen, would have worked out better for her, but we only know that because hindsight is 20/20.
I appreciate your opinion and your engagement on this topic, but I am not going to engage with you on it any further as we are just not going to agree.
Thanks!
We always seem to lose sight of the aggressor. The aggressor always has the upper hand. The aggressor will not listen, the aggressor will not stop, the aggressor will always strike first. Remember it’s been stated publicly for the record. “We will burn it down.” That’s aggressive.
The girl in the van was not the aggressor. Bad guy wins good guy looses, always. And until this country comes to grips with the fact that crime and the violence that’s affecting us daily is not a negotiating tool, (looting, burning ,murder, releasing killers from prison and then denying law enforcement to enforce the law are not tools) maybe people will stop pulling out tools they feel will quell the situation at hand. I give kudos to the restraint that was shown!
Admittedly, both situations did not call for deadly force. Both situations took a defensive stand, knowing no one is coming to their aid. That’s scary even for me and I’m trained. However, by the time deadly force is required the good guy needs to get hurt first.
“What if” (I know we hate these but we practice them in our heads daily) the other woman pulled her gun, knife, acid, name your deadly instrument, out first and upped the attacked, then your telling me that NOW I pull mine and HOPE I can shoot? What if there were more people lying in wait?
In the real world things happen in the blink of an eye. We have witnessed it! Mobs form in seconds and death comes on swift wings!
On a lighter note both situations make for great training videos. Look at us. We are critiquing every move and WE were NOT there.
Both situations?
This is exactly why I feel that drawing her weapon was justified. When the mother hit the van, the people in the van did not know what hit the van. If it was a knife, there is the 21-foot issue. If it was a gun, it was a gun. If if was just her hand, well i don’t shoot her. In my opinion, drawing the weapon and not shooting was warranted. I wouldn’t have done it because if I draw my weapon, I’m firing. I am not going to give the other guy a chance to draw on me. This is why I have I have not drawn my weapon, except for range time, since I was in combat.
It’s not that big of an assumption if you follow the rule of law.
We are assumed to be innocent until proven guilty under the law.
When charged one is still innocent until/unless there is a conviction. IF convicted, only then is one guilty.
Unless of course a mob performs a lynching first
I personally have seen enough of this video (and some versions show more than others) to know that the only thing I can say for sure is none of this was necessary!!!
Your kid bumped mine, or you bumped me, big fricking deal. What IF the woman that pulled the gun had been just a little more scared, pissed, or psychotic and pulled the trigger?? Would it have really been woth dying in front of your kids over??? I think not.
The party that escalated by blocking the car when the other party was trying to leave and go about their lives was in the wrong for not doing the same and leaving. At a minimum it set a worse than bad example for anyone watching, especially her own kids.
I was pretty young when I learned there are a whole lot of people out there who don’t care if you or I live or die, and some of them would be just fine putting us in a ditch for fun. Treat people with respect and don’t mess with people unless it really is worth what the worst possible outcome could be.
It just might be more important to be alive than to be right (even if you are wrong) and too many people have ended up dead for trying to be right over stupid crap that no one would of ever thought was worth dying for.
@Ben_Blanc, I see you are unwilling to have a reasonable discussion, and that you believe only you are right. Out of my entire post, that is what you chose to address. That speaks volumes. No, none of here believe we are invincible and immune to prosecution, that is why we are here, to learn and help each other grow from each others’ knowledge and experience. Your condescension and belief that you are the purveyor of what actions are “right” and are, yourself, immune because you obviously, with whatever experience you had, are godlike in your intuition and ability to defend yourself.
The only “facts” we know are what the video depicts. We “know” only that supposedly a “bump” was the stimulus of this incident. We “know” that the girl felt slighted that the woman did not say “Excuse me”, as the girl said “Excuse you”, and demanded an apology. That is not the demeanor of a decent person. We know that at least one threat to assault them was issued, and profanities, an ad hominem attack upon the white woman immediately commenced, further ignited by the black mother. We also know that the black people just “conveniently” their cell phones at the ready to video the entire incident. If you noticed, the white couple did not have their cell phone cameras at the ready to record video.
We also know that the white woman after a brief exchange, and the husband trying to clear the way to their vehicle, and getting his wife in the vehicle, did try to de-escalate the encounter. They also tried to end the incident by driving away. When they tried to leave, the black mother moved behind the vehicle and began beating on it. We know from prior incidents, being in a vehicle waiting to be assaulted does not end well. The end result is that the couple was able to survive the assault.
All of us here do know that after a self-defense encounter that we will very likely be facing some sort of legal action, be it criminal and/or civil. The prosecutor is on record as saying that she was going to pursue charges against the white people. So it is not an “assumption” that the prosecutor was eager, she made it clear that she was going to press charges, not just investigate and see what comes of that. She did what she could to find something to charge them with - that fits with “being eager”.
Our training and experience also tells us not to wait until you are assaulted to begin your defense. You seem to have the uncanny ability, due to your experience, to know exactly when this is. If you perceive a threat, you try to get away. If you are unable to get away, if there is a threat of great bodily harm or death, we have the legal right to defend ourselves before we are hurt or killed. Please provide some details to show how you became the expert in self-defense, so we can all learn to be so wonderful. And explain how when defending yourself that you became immune to prosecution and civil suits, and any other negative outcomes. We are all waiting with bated breath.
Edited to tag the correct Ben (Ben_Blanc instead of Ben). ~Dawn
Black or white, black people / white people, black mother / white woman need not be stated in matters where objectivity is desired, or where understanding of a legal matter is being sought.
If for no other reason than the extreme polarization and emotion of current times, I would like it if we could limit our usage of adjectives to those objectively relevant.
Party one, party two, party blocking egress, etc will help us all to find common ground or to discuss a legal matter without unnecessarily invoking emotion.
Only used to differentiate the various parties in the incident. That was easier than the linguistic hurdles that otherwise would be needed to discuss this particular incident. If you would like, I can go back and edit as you suggest, my points would still remain the same, even if the races were reversed.
Ill play devils advocate for this one…the legal system already uses a pre determined spin on emotion in my mind as an example I would use this. A prosecutor may say that someone used an excessive fire say 8 rounds to neutralize a threat when it could have been achieved with 4 rounds. They may argue that the defendant had a retaliatory mindset or in other words did not operate on logic but emotional payback. What would you say to this (disclaimer I’m not advocating a retaliatory mindset
I get it. I’m guilty at times as well.
But I know some words or descriptions will trigger emotion that prevents me from understand and just makes me want to ‘return fire’, figuratively speaking
Written word doesnt convey intended emotion (or lack of) well, but can easily trigger emotions inside us based upon our own personal experiences. I’ve never been raped so when I read the word I can stay completely objective, someone else may re-live a horrible experience simply by reading the word.
Personally I think the intention of prosecutor is to play on the emotional elements. Let’s face it at some point facts are the facts but the emotional element allows for prosecutorial wiggle room. That’s why I like these blogs…have the sometimes heated and potential what if before your actually in a situation where you will ultimately loose control of the aftermath
@Randyb
I would say that you are right and that I can even prove the point further (if I understand your point correctly). It doesn’t surprise me because: it is the prosecuting attorney’s job to seek a conviction using the tools of the trade. Painting the picture that he wants the judge, or jury, to see is only one of these tools.
Underlying this is the fact that we are still all supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.
It’s my understanding the couple had two children in the back seat of the vehicle. They were attempting to de-escalate, and then to leave, but the people they were arguing with did not make it easy for them to leave.
Also, from what I understand based on a thread from a different forum, the white woman and the black woman’s daughter were trying to come through the door of the business at the same time – one coming, one going – and there was some bumping involved, which somehow escalated into the argument where the video picks up. Seems like some common courtesy from both parties could have prevented this whole incident.
I’m shocked they keep screaming for the very people they just defunded. Good luck with that.
Girl w/gun definitely tried to deescalate and got in the cover of her van.
She had great trigger control and an awesome stance.
Have to admit that deadly force was not authorized, I do understand why she jumped out of the van. That was emotional. She was cool from inside the vehicle, her tone was soft spoken over the screaming lunatics.
This is where we are. There is no conversation when you are accosted , violently.
What happened to “excuse me”, or “sorry”? There is a total lack of decency. So it’s come down to, if you look at me wrong, it’s racist? In that case, “I wear my sunglasses at night…”
This is the video. It starts at some point after the bump in the doorway of Chipotle. There are a few things that I find noteworthy. First, the video starts with the videographer and the mother between the woman and her car. Second, and this is the most important question for me, why is the mother behind the vehicle? Third, the mother hits the vehicle because they were going to hit her.
If the incident started as the family was entering and the couple was leaving, why does the mother need to go back to the parking lot once the incident is over? My logic says she was going back there to block the vehicle to continue yelling at the couple and demand an apology or continue to dare them to call the police.
My QUESTION is:
Do you think that the couple will be convicted of the felonies (assault with a deadly weapon) they are being charged with?