How many legal and tactical errors can you spot?

Self-Defense
42

OK, let’s focus on the question…"how many tactical errors? " I will start with 6.

  1. Continued tword a visible threat when retreat was possible (reverse direction)
  2. Smoke grenade…that’s a whole other crazy!
  3. Moved his vehicle into a trapped position
  4. Positioned his vulnerable “passenger” nearest the threat…putting the one you should be protecting between you and the threat. “Bad”
  5. Left the safety of the vehicle, abandon passenger, again didn’t try to escape by turning the truck to the left and leaving the seen (saw no threat of gun fire, should one stay in truck) could have both gotten out on driver side and run for cover.
  6. Poor use of cover (did not utilize the truck bed properly in a defense position), poor tactical movement as he rounds the truck, looks to be on the aggressive side now.
  7. Oh can’t stop now…let’s the passenger get out of vehicle…then goes from condition red to what appears to be green in a split second and some guy just walks up to him. We don’t know the whole story but just from what I saw this is not a good scenario on multiple levels.
7 Likes
43

@Randy54.Welcome to the community, train hard and stay safe. :grinning:

1 Like
44

Again with the inaccurate and incorrect grocery store analogy?

As stated before, that is not the same thing.

And yet, some might consider the illegal actions that block the road, the illegal attempt to deny freedom of movement, aggression.

As I said, I am not condoning what he did, I am simply pointing out an alternate point of view, and blocking the road illegally, blocking traffic, illegal behavior, might be considered an aggression by some, and even if not, the smoke grenade was non-violent, so the criminals reaction with violence could be considered an escalation.
He did lower the firearm as the possible threats dispersed and left.

Actually, he or his passenger tossed a grenade, we assume, as that is not visible in the video or I did not see it, while attempting to go around them. Not sure he was waiting on the light, or if he was attempting to make a right turn, which is legal. He did not use lethal force, he used a smoke grenade. He did not threaten them with a firearm for being in the road, that came after they attacked him.

Yes, he made a bad decision, but at what point do you consider the criminal actions of others to be aggression.

I am not arguing with you that he did the correct thing, only playing devil’s advocate, and pointing out how others might view it or an alternate way of thinking about it.

How about this, since you like grocery stores… if someone or more than one someone is blocking an aisle and you want to reach an item 5 feet away, and it is down the aisle and back another aisle and back into the one you are in to get it… that is an inconvenience… what if you politely say excuse me, try to pass the people blocking the aisle and they suddenly start to hit your shopping cart. Did you escalate it or instigate the situation by attempting to pass?

Note added: We still have not even pointed out the legality of actually using a smoke grenade, which might not have been legal in the first place…

2 Likes
45

This guy had poor situational awareness, he saw danger from the peaceful ones, cause they were right in front of him and loud, but he ignored their powerful allies, who pounced on him afterwards.

Likewise, I see the primary bad actor in the fragment below - it is not the “protesters angry about…”, it is the Newsweek distorting the truth for millions.

Police told the station a few dozen protesters angry about the Breonna Taylor case were lying down in an intersection and blocking traffic around 5:30 p.m. Saturday. Newsweek described them as “Black Lives Matter protesters” engaged in a “peaceful demonstration.”

1 Like
46

blm and “peaceful protestors” so that makes it all OK to break the law…
The police set up the situation by their criminal disregard for law-abiding citizens. The police deserve ALL the blame and contempt.

47

@Danny28 you said it yourself, police (actually ALL authority) is a necessary evil. There is as much accent on “necessary” as any other word. Police in general deserve fairness and respect, but never contempt. Citizens should respect themselves and their own rights, and demand police and media do their duty and not treat citizens with contempt.

I mean if PD Chief in your town kneeled with the mob, and cooled tempers down, I am willing to view it as doing his job. But if he let burning and looting to go on - clearly this is not acceptable, and something needs to be replaced, be it the leadership, entire PD, or maybe redirect funds to hire people who will enforce public safety.

48

So, police deserve it, but not INNOCENT citizens???

As for “contempt”… much of what is going on today the police brought on themselves for decades of abusing innocent people. They ask you something and you reply-- they say "do you know how many times I get lied to every day-- forgetting that they lie through their teeth 10 times more to get INNOCENT people to surrender their rights…or lets to with the "was that me, did I do that, then why do you compare me to… meanwhile they don’t know you, but treat you like you just another criminal deserving of contempt… My comment that the police deserve the CONTEMPT stands.

I hate to continue to harp on this, but do even a casual search on Youtube with terms like “CopWatch”, Watching the Watchers", Photography is not a Crime", Oath Breakers" and the like and you will see pompous, arrogant, ignorant police officers AND many times their supervisors and even chiefs showing their ignorance of the laws they think they are enforcing and their absolute contempt and disregard for the Constitution that they swore an oath to defend…

49

But Danny, you are generalizing, and it is not fair. For example, Broward co, FL had had an awful Sheriff, he hired Deputy Sheriff who should have triggered intense interest from the DHS, his response to Ft.Lauderdale airport mass shooting and Parkland school massacre was below the lowest of standards, and there were shenanigans with lost ballots in 2016. By comparison, Palm Beach co has a Sheriff who is an honorable man, didn’t allow any freeways blocked during recent unrest, nor there are brutality cases of national infamy in his dept., and simply stated I approve of his performance and will vote for the guy.

1 Like
50

Seems to me a lot of posts didn’t read the heading for this: How many legal and tactical errors can you spot? I know there are larger, overarching issues that we’re all very passionate about, but staying on topic:

  • The driver/passenger instigated. Stupid people lying in the street aren’t instigating. They’re just plain stupid. No reason at all to toss anything at them.
  • No clear path of escape. Cars behind, horses and buggies ahead.
  • Brandishing. My gun isn’t coming out of concealment just because someone dented my vehicle.

Woulda coulda shoulda. I know as responsible citizens we shouldn’t have to put up with this crap. But it doesn’t give us the right to deputize ourselves and become judge and jury on the streets. Ask yourself, would the USCCA cover this driver’s legal fees if he were a member? I think we all know the answer.

3 Likes
51

So I wonder, do you believe that people screaming right in your face, but not touching you is, just a sign of the times?
I believe in law and order leading to justice, but clearly this system is being distorted by socialist movements and elected officials.
When people are clearly breaking the law (lying in the street), this would be a legal error in this scenario.
At some point, all people will fight back when law and order are not maintained. As I said before, if the driver has CFP then he should have left the law breakers alone.
Larger, overarching issues cannot be dismissed. Just my opinion.

3 Likes
52

I feel like you are pushing for an agreement and I can’t give it. I watched the video and the driver had the ability to go around them. There was no reason for him to engage them other than to pick a fight. That is what it is.

2 Likes
53

@Adamant, agree 100%. At some point law and order will break down, and people will fight back. But again, the question was … legal and tactical errors. This just isn’t a hill I would die on … a bunch of losers lying in the street for 9 minutes. Drive around, keep your powder dry for a real issue.

3 Likes
54

Same thing the police do daily… its OK for them, but not for me?? That double-standard continues.

1 Like
55

Not to be abstract, this is what we are talking about. You can easily read emotional state of the victim from her pose. Raised fists, agitated screaming, inching toward her -these are pre-attack indicators. The victim is cornered, facing multiple potentials assailants and observing pre-attack indicators. If she were armed? Please tell me I am wrong in my analysis.

3 Likes
56

Sadly, the police wouldn’t put up with it, but if this woman defended herself because of all the pre-attack indicators she’d be arrested and charged… a sad state of affairs being made possible by police inaction.

3 Likes
57

I agree with you on this. I will also say that if she were armed, drawing the weapon has a very serious chance of it being used against her. There are to many people in very close proximity.

4 Likes
58

I suppose I was being too pedantic, I do agree agree in regards to the driver. A legal error in the scenario is that laws were broken lying in the street, period
As to the armed driver absolutely I would stay out out that situation, drive around and depart.
The scenario in the restaurant is a whole different matter. I would certainly not be dining out near demonstrations. Caught in that situation, I would be thinking about drawing. A sucker punch of stab may be to late. I would not let them cower over me

3 Likes
59

Nope, no agreement needed or sought.

Simply presenting an alternative view.

As I stated, I agree with you. I simply point to the fact that their lawlessness, their criminal behavior, does not grant them immunity, and some can consider it an escalation of the situation.

It is an attempt I guess to have people consider as many variables are possible.

2 Likes
60

Analysis appears correct, and other than the fact she is vastly outnumbered, and the results are not guaranteed, she would be justified in drawing a weapon to defend herself… but the chance of it being ripped from her grasp is there also.

3 Likes
61

Yup, she has no mobility. I would be afraid, in this situation, if one thug punched her, the rest of the mob would join in, with tragic result.
Trying to gang up on a mobile target is different, e.g. Kenosha. Stay mobile. Leave the restaurant, or the intersection for that matter, before you are surrounded by hostiles.

2 Likes