[adroitus]

As a purely legal self-defense matter Scout Man, I think you would be in the middle of the worst mess you could imagine right now if this situation had gone to the extreme of you shooting one of these dirtbags. His lawyer would easily convince any jury that you initiated hostilities, which is what “get the hell out of the road” would be portrayed as. Him panhandling and you driving past is a sort of interaction, but not a confrontation. It became what could be considered a confrontation when you spoke to him.

I won't comment on charity and the homeless problem other than to say it isn't illegal, which is all that concerns us here as we discuss this situation and the law. The fact is that as CHL holders, our behavior has to be above reproach if we find ourselves in a situation where we use our legally carried guns. If there is even a reasonable doubt that we had no other option except the use of deadly force in a situation, we go to jail and the rest of us suffer in the media.

This situation fails one for sure and maybe two of the three conditions (ability, opportunity, jeapordy) needed to make this a justifiable shooting. Opportunity fails for sure, because you were in a vehicle and they were on foot, so they would have had a hard time getting to you. Broken windows and scratched paint aside, you could easily have driven through them or four-wheeled over the curb to escape like you said. Ability might or might not fail, because even though you didn't see any weapons, they could have had them, and because there were multiple attackers, that increases ability, because multiple attackers could most likely beat another unarmed opponent to death if they wanted to. The need to prove jeapordy could be met if the first two requirements are met and you feel threatened by your attacker's actions. I think their actions spoke loudly enough in this case, but the first two conditions are weak.

I don't think a shooting in this situation would have stood up in court. You would have been out lots of money and a good chunk of your life as you contemplated the wall of the penitentry from the inside for a few years. Everyone--you, your family, and the bum--would have lost if this had escalated into a shooting.

I am really glad you shared this situation with the group, Scout Man. This is the sort of learning experience that is invaluable for all of us. I'm glad no lasting harm came to anyone. If anyone cares to comment on my analysis of this situation, please do. I only hope that I will be able to make so reasoned a response if this situation ever confronts me. There is a big difference between sitting here at my computer, and having my family with me and the adrenaline going and being in that parking lot.

Having said that, I think your tactics were good once you did decide to take action. I especially applaud the fact that you carry OC spray. It is ethically and legally desirable to have a non-lethal option available to you for self-defense in addition to a pistol.

Scout Man, on Apr 5 2005, 10:24 AM, said:

<snip>
Mr. Transient is standing between lanes with his “please help me get drunk tonight” sign. My window is down and I say to him:.  A quick wink in the mirror indicates his dissatisfaction with suggestion to save his life. I proceed to the store and my wife notices that now three dirt bags are coming across the parking lot yelling and motioning. I see this and determine my exit is blocked. I could have 4-wheeled it in hind site but…

<snip>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Jon]

Adroitus, I have to concede a point to you there. I hadn't seen the "Get the hell out of the road" comment as a particular confrontation in and of itself. Although the bums clearly were the ones escalating it to a physical threatening level, I have to agree that the comment made was the initiating factor.

This being said, I don't believe that escape/evasion could have gone much differently than what Scout did. If there was only the one exit from the parking lot, that could have easily been blocked off by the bums, and I strongly doubt scout would have wanted to run them over. and as far as 4x'ing it out of there, there's no guarantee that he wouldn't have gotten stuck in an unseen ditch or a collapsed culvert. I think retreating to the store where he could ensure his family's safety was the best course of action there....

[Q-ball]

Although the bums clearly were the ones escalating it to a physical threatening level, I have to agree that the comment made was the initiating factor.

Given time, comments that 'make' transients go beserk will include "Sorry, I have no change" and "No" and "Leave me alone". So in the future we should do the following:
Better not say anything to transients.
Don't make eye contact with transients.
Maybe we shouldn't even go out in public, don't want to 'offend' transients.

I understand Linch's point about the whole comment thing and to leave it alone. The thing is....words don't make a rational person go beserk and want to hurt/kill the ones that spoke them. Words are not justification to use physical force or deadly force. We, CHL holder and other people that have jobs, are expected to act rationally. Transients, the ones that like to be homeless and leach off of others that work, are not upheld to the same standards as us.

If you attack me for the words I say, that is not my fault. The words I say do not include threats to their family or wellbeing. Rather, just because you disagree with my words you shouldn't attack me. Liberals and America haters will have you think differently. As soon as some woman, African American or some other minority is offended, the ACLU will come running to help.

Wow, I've been typing and retyping for over half an hour and just now it hit me.....do not offend anyone, scratch that, do not offend any minority or else.

What Scout Man said was not threatening to that transient. It was a harsh warning that he should move to a safer area.
Just because you disagree with my words you shouldn't attack me.

I retyped the bold phrase because I have had this belief for a long time. The only time one should use physical force is when they have to defend themselves, family or property. Words just don't cut it.

What say you?
If someone says something you disagree with, even if it's said a little harshly, do you get some friends and go looking to kick ass? This does not include threats to the family etc.

[MisterEd]

Quote

Just because you disagree with my words you shouldn't attack me.

Is this quote from the sociology 101 textbook?
Or is this a new take on "sticks and stones etc" from when we were kids?

My point? Just don't bet your life on that quote. It would be real easy to carve onto a headstone!

[Q-ball]

MisterEd, on Apr 7 2005, 02:08 PM, said:

Quote

Just because you disagree with my words you shouldn't attack me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is this quote from the sociology 101 textbook?

No it's not, what's that supposed to mean anyway?

Or is this a new take on "sticks and stones etc" from when we were kids?

I know your sticks and stones statement is a slam, but I don't get it. It's not other people's speech or statements that iritate me to the point of physical confrontation. When my words make someone else, ie transient, mad because they can't control their emotions it's not my problem. It doesn't relate to the 'sticks and stones' mentality. Could you explain you sticks and stones reference?

My point? Just don't bet your life on that quote.

Thanks for the advice.

It would be real easy to carve onto a headstone!

I have something else in mind for my grave.

[jnichols]

jnichols, on Apr 5 2005, 06:00 PM, said:

Glad to hear evertything turned out alright!! Good Job.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is what I posted Monday after reading this post for the first time. It meant that I am glad that ScoutMan's situation turned out with a non-violent ending for everyone, and that he and his family were unharmed. I do not agree with everything ScoutMan did, but I was not there. It was unfortunate that things went the way they did, but ENDED well, IMO. No one was hurt.

This situation does pose interesting points. Who said what and when. Who should have said what and what should not have been said. I must say that I personally do not believe telling someone to get out of the road should warrent a violent response. But, had the situation turned and ScoutMan had to use his gun, I think this probably would have made HIM the bad guy in a courtroom. I think that it is completely ridiculous, but I am afraid that would be the outcome. It is sad to me that because I choose to carry and not be a victim, I must watch whom I tell to get out of the road, or not make eye contact with, or aviod a certain part of town. Because the guy in the road might respond violently to my words, or because I looked him in the eye, or drove through his neighborhood. And this is EXACTLY WHY I CARRY in the first place. People are unpredictable, do not value other human life, and are just plain crazy.

Unfortunately, alot of the people I see as "crazy" or otherwise "misguided", a large portion of the population see as "Unfortunate". So these people get away with resorting to violence in response to someones words, or eye contact, etc. Which leaves us that carry between a rock and a hard place. That is why I will personally avoid confronting people and watch my own responses to the best of my ability. I try and keep myself from getting involved with these people because I do not want to end up the BAD GUY in the eyes of a jury that says I shot the "unfortunate" man that I told to get out of the road. And because he was "unfortunate", he did not know that a violent or homicidal response to my words was wrong, so I had no right to shoot him. This is what I worry about. I do not want to visit with my Wife and Children from prison.

This is all JUST MY OPINION of this situation. I hope it does not cause anyone to think I am pointing fingers, because I am not. I am not saying transients are crazy, or otherwise labeling anyone. I am just stating my opinion based on the given situation. I hope we can all still shake hands after this one, cause it seems to be getting a little heated. I do value everyones opinion on this forum.

[Jon]

Q-ball, on Apr 7 2005, 12:10 PM, said:

Although the bums clearly were the ones escalating it to a physical threatening level, I have to agree that the comment made was the initiating factor.

Given time, comments that 'make' transients go beserk will include "Sorry, I have no change" and "No" and "Leave me alone".  So in the future we should do the following:

Ok. I should clarify the point I was making here. To a rational person, no that would not have caused them to blow up, etc. To someone with anger control problems, that might have caused them to become physically aggressive. I'm not trying to justify what the bums did. My point is that from a purely legal standpoint, Scout's comments could be seen as the initiating factor that led to a confrontation. Would that be right? Absolutely not. But I learned a long time ago that the law and courts have very little to do with what's actually *right*.....

[Variable]

Jim_Linch, on Apr 8 2005, 02:20 PM, said:

Scoutman thanks for the PM.

adroitus said:

I am really glad you shared this situation with the group, Scout Man. This is the sort of learning experience that is invaluable for all of us. I'm glad no lasting harm came to anyone.

I too thank you!



Q-ball,
I don't agree with your words, now SHUT UP or I WILL BRING PHYSICAL VIOLENCE ON YOU! j/k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bring the video camera! I'll record!

[jnichols]

Jon, I am basically saying what you are, just saying it differently, I think. I have a hard time saying what I mean sometimes, but I agree with you.

Scout Man, I too thank you for sharing your situation with us. It has really made everyone think, and thinking is good.

[Q-ball]

Variable said:

Bring the video camera! I'll record!

You're twisted and sadistic.






I like it.

As for everyone else....this has been a good thread for everyone to reflect on what they believe should be the truth and what really is. Thanks to all for letting me vent.

Jim_Linch said:

Q-ball,
I don't agree with your words, now SHUT UP or I WILL BRING PHYSICAL VIOLENCE ON YOU! j/k

What can I say? I have a knack for pissing people off with my argumentative nature and my incredible good looks . Just ask the guys I work with.

[Fatrichie]

To ME, this proves the CHL class instructors strongest point.

Every situation is a judgement call, for all involved, even the scumbag. In a split second, you weigh all the options, and make the call. And then be prepared for the consequences. All the while adapting to the changing situation.

It's alot to keep in mind, and not an easy choice to make. And it shouldn't be easy. Taking a human life, no matter how big a scuzz bucket, is permanant, and you better be able to handle it if the time comes.

Another atta-boy for Scoutman!

[Alter Ego]

Ok, I'll bite and throw in my .02.

Before I say anything let's get this out of the way: Scoutman, I don't know you and most of you on here don't know me, so none of this is personal.

I think you used some decent tactics:

I especially like the part where when you percieved a threat, you broke the "rules" and drove right up to the front of the store, thereby attracting all sorts of atention and getting your family close to a safet position.

The only rules that aren't artificial are the rules of physics. To escape danger, we may park on the sidewalk right in front of a business, go 4-wheeling through the grass, or even drive on the wrong side of the road. As long as you don't hurt anybody that's not involved it's all good. Many people wouldn't even think of doing these things because "the rules" are too ingrained in their head.

Your decision to verbalize to the guy standing in the middle of the road is not one I would have made:

Did you have the "right" to say it? Absolutely, and many people (including the ACLU) will defend your right to say it. Was it worth it? That's for you to decide.

Making unsolicited comments like that increases your risk of being in a violent confrontation. If the point you are trying to make to the dude standing in the middle of the road was worth the escalated risk of bodily injury to yourself and your family, then you made the right choice. This is a risk vs. benefit descision that only you can make for your self. You are also making this descision for your family.

If it had become necessary to shoot one, two, or all three of them; or if you or a member of your family had been injurered, I think I would have wished I had just left your window rolled up and kept on trucking, if I were in your shoes.

Just my thoughts. We can still be friends if you don't agree with me.

Regards,
David

[Q-ball]

...and many people (including the ACLU) will defend your right to say it

The ACLU will only defend you're rights if it's within their agenda.
I hate that organization.

Mighty's right, we need to stick together.
Except for Linch <whisper>I think he's a cop</whisper> Just kiddn

[GB]

Loudernhel, I do not disagree with your statements. I have had a good number of PM conversations with members and I do feel most of us are on the same page in the arguments and beliefs on how this was handled, and how it should have been handled, and most importantly, how it could have been avoided.

I would like to add at this time, 9 days later, the home impaired have not returned to this location or their standard work stations in the vicinity...

[Alter Ego]

I wasnt' saying he would get charged or convicted in a bad shoot.

I'm just saying if you make a habit of peeing in other peoples cheerio's, a certain percentage of them are going to take exception to it and try to hand you your head.

I'm not saying peeing in somebody elses cheerio's is a BAD thing. I do it pretty frequently myself. You just have to be ready for the inevitable backlash.

[jnichols]

loudernhel, on Apr 12 2005, 08:07 PM, said:

I'm just saying if you make a habit of peeing in other peoples cheerio's, a certain percentage of them are going to take exception to it and try to hand you your head.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I never quite thought of it like that before. Thanks for the Education, Loudernhel!! Puts an image in my head.

[gotnspikes]

Ok, I know this post is a year old now, but I wasn't here when it started.

I'm really surprised that nobody jumped on "It became what could be considered a confrontation when you spoke to him."

I'm honestly not trying to pick on anyone, just showing another way to look at it. IMO you can use that same logic and say the confrontation started with the guy standing in the street/lane/driveway in peoples way of driving. I mean, doesn't the confrontation start at the point where someone has been offended/bothered by someone elses [real or perceived(sp?)]actions/words against them? Obviously GB was offended by the stress of having to watch out for someone else's safety because they were being an idiot. If he wasn't offended, he wouldn't have said anything. At least GB wasn't going to take it to physical violence over the (real or perceived)offense to himself.

I just wanted to throw out another way to look at a point that stirred multiple comments in one direction and not the other. Always two sides to a coin

Anyway,

Peace to all of you,

Jeff

[maladjusted]

oregonshooter, on Apr 6 2005, 12:10 AM, said:

everyone seems to think it was justified.

Ahem, everyone?



To address the argument that if we do nothing we encourage this behavior, who REALLY thinks that telling a bum to "Get out of the middle of the road" is going to discourage them? That's like saying that probation and community service discourages hardened criminals.

They are lost cases, and nothing I could say is going to change that. As a result, talking to them is not worth the risk that one of them unhinges the rest of the way and puts me in a situation where I have to defend myself. They are not going to change their behavior for the positive.

If there was a chance that talking to these sorts would help them it might be worth the risk to try and help them, but as the world exists, they are not going to be helped by anyone unless/ until they make a decision to get off the streets, and many of them are there because they have "opted out" of society.


PS I just realized I quoted and replied to a YEAR OLD comment. We need a risen from the dead ghost of a post smiley. will have to suffice for now.

[neno]

Telling someone to get out of the road is road rage?  Or are you referring to somewhere else in his post?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My point is... There would not have been an incident if he had kept his thoughts to himself. I'm just as guilty of this myself, but have learned the hard way to taper back on my comments.

Do you think road rage shootings start off much differently? They happen because of the perception, not reality of the incident. These homeless guys thought he was being an a$$ (which I agree) and decided to do something about it.

Like I said, could have been a lot worse. You must way the questions...
"What do they have to loose?"
"What do I have to loose?"
"Is it worth it?"

At which point do we claim our country and our rights. All that he said to the guy was to get out of the road * before someone ran him over. I think that the biggest problem in America today is people not having the guts to stand up for what is right. I think the original Poster did everything right . Just think of what would have happened if someone else would have said the same thing to the Bum. Probably would not have ended well for this person.
If nothing else, by speaking up, he removed the bums from the road and possibly saved the life of another non gun carrying Liberal ( not sure if that is a good thing though )

All I am saying is that, there is a point in our lives where standing up for what is right is just the right thing to do.
Hitler came to power because people turned their heads the other way !!!
History is a tough teacher .. just remember that .