Where a Redneck Jew, a Hispanic Catholic, and a Computer Geek write about Gun Rights, Self Defense and whatever else we can think about.
A tad fuzzy, but compliments the first video posted earlier.
Here is the first one so you don’t have to go chasing after it.
It is clear to me (IANAL) that this is s defensive shooting and truthfully I want to see if the D.A. dares to bring charges. Maybe he will be bold enough to take it to Grand Jury and hope they dump this case so he does not have to suffer in the press.
Hat Tip for the first video to Larry Correia.
Semi-retired like Vito Corleone before the heart attack. Consiglieri to J.Kb and AWA. I lived in a Gun Control Paradise: It sucked and got people killed. I do believe that Freedom scares the political elites.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Guy hit him in the head with a skateboard. He runs away. Gets tackled. Skateboard guy tries to hit him in the head again and dude puts four into skateboard guy. Seems legit to me.
I agree. This sort of situation would test my concealed carry insurance. He was clearly trying to disengage, and they were clearly threatening him by chasing him and saying “We’re gonna f*cking kill you.”
IANAL, but I think I would have taken the shot as well.
What you’re not showing is the very beginning of this incident where the shooter throws a woman (who was making the terrible mistake of blocking his path) to the ground, thus igniting the crowd.
So the sequence is:
– shooter assaults woman
– crowd chases and hits shooter with skateboard
– shooter goes to the ground and shoots two people when he gets up.
Not sure why you’re not showing the assault on the woman. I’ve seen two different angles on it, including the one that’s being carried in the media…
https://www.abqjournal.com/1466753
While you’re dissecting this event more thoroughly, you might also want to google “Bethel, KY protest” and see what pops up. Make sure you see the clip of the peaceful protestor getting hit in the head by a some of the locals. The protestor is not armed and he walks away. No one gets shot.
Your boy here in Albuquerque is done. He’ll be gone for years, life ruined. All because he decided to be an ahole and go for the gun once he got on the losing end of battle he brought on himself.
“Seems legit to me.”
Man, you folks are lost.
Dwight doesn’t understand disparity of force, deadly force, or being pursued while retreating.
From a legal perspective, “he started it” doesn’t actually matter once he starts running away.
We all know these things very well, which is why we know you can’t shoot someone just because they sucker punch you and run off. That’s not what happened here.
Because the assault of the woman is an event that had ceased. Blue shirt had withdrawn from the location (Duty to Retreat) , but he was chased and attacked by several people ( Disparity of force) and one of them used a skateboard to his head, or tried (assault with a deadly weapon). I am not sure, but I think even in NM that is considered enough grounds to use a firearm in self defense.
Mind you, the Powers That Be will probably try to throw everthing at him if they are stupid enough, but then this case would become the Zimmerman Trial of New Mexico.
I’d add the the assault on the woman was dubious because she was body blocking him and making contact.
Except as soon as he attempted to retreat, the original confrontation was over. No matter what happened before, chasing him down the street in order to enact a little street justice was not a continuation of the original confrontation, but the instigation of an all new one.
Assuming he had a concealed-carry permit, and the gun he used was of the type (revolver vs. semi-auto) and equal to or smaller caliber than specified (NM’s permitting system is a little weird), he shouldn’t be in trouble for having had a gun.
The remainder of the incident – disengaged, retreated, etc. – has already been commented on.
That said … a lot of what will happen to him, prosecutorially, will be driven by politics. It shouldn’t, but it will be.
It’s Bethel, OH, you idiot, and we’ve already been discussing it.
He was justified in the use of force. Unfortunately, as I have read from other reports, he did not have government permission to carry the firearm.
So, he is screwed.
???
Bernie Goetz
Not having a permit makes his crime a misdemeanor in NM. Not a felony.
Did he shoot the other black hoodie dude too?
I wonder if the DA will be able to find some ass-kissing HQ sclub to sign the police report recommending charges, like they did in the Trayvon Martin case? IIRC, none of the police involved in the investigation signed it, and Angela Corey had to find someone in another agency to sign it.
Maybe if they had sentenced the bike lock wielding college professor to some serious jail time a few years ago, these Antifa and Black Bloc assholes would not be so emboldened? Ya think?
The legal system is not on our side.
The system may not be on our side but all the things Miguel mentioned, the retreat, disparate use of force, the assault and the fact that whatever happened earlier ended when he retreated, them following started a new instance, have been very well documented against gun owners for a while now and any lawyer worth their stuff will be able to get him off there. if it even gets that far.
So you’re out with your wife and some guy comes up, assaults her, throws her to the ground and runs. You run after him and find a couple witnesses to join in. Y’all tackle him and try to restrain him and he manages to get up and shoots you.
Good shoot, right?
JFC, guys. You all carry?
You’re omitting the part about trying to bludgeon the guy to death. The video is right there. You’re choosing to ignore it.
Last question first. I do and have done so for 2 decades.
“your wife and some guy comes up, assaults her, throws her to the ground and runs”
My first duty is to my wife, to make sure she is OK. and not chasing after the attacker.
Will I be pissed? Sure as hell. But I do not let my Ego dictate my actions: I carry a firearm.
I dare not question what would you do in the same position.
It’s funny you should mention that, because this was one of the textbook cases we covered in one of the use of force classes I took. The exact example was like this:
Let’s say that a man robs a jewelry store and then runs away with his ill gotten booty. The store owner gives chase with a baseball bat and eventually catches up to the robber, who has stopped running. He then begins beating the robber with the bat, whereupon the robber pulls out a gun and shoots the jewelry store owner.
At the point of the shooting, the robbery was over. The owner had started an all new crime of beating the (former) jewelry store robber. Since the (former) robber was in fear of death or serious bodily harm, he legally defended himself. Sure, he will have to answer for the robbery, but the shooting is clearly self defense.
As people who carry concealed weapons, we know that the firearm we are carrying is not to be used to win a fight, exact revenge for perceived slights, nor is it there to make us into free lance police officers. It is there to defend our lives and the lives of others. How can you claim to be defending someone’s life as you are chasing another person down the street while screaming that you are going to kill them?
Dwight:
Using your rather basic example, yes, that could potentially be considered a good self defensive shooting. However your simple example leaves out a lot of potential details that may change that decision.
Unanswered questions abound.
1. Was your wife still in any physical danger? (Likely not, as you said the assailant was leaving the scene)
2. How much time elapsed between the attack on your wife, and when the pursuit starts? A few seconds, or a few dozen seconds? More than a minute?
3. How far away was the initial assault from the attempt to restrain the assailant? Inches versus yards.
4. What techniques were used to restrain the assailant? (Physical attempt, versus an attempt to block their path?)
5. What was said? (in ABQ, the words “we’re going to f***ing kill you.” are heard. That is pretty much a clear threat of major physical harm, thus use of deadly force in self defense is warranted.)
6. Is/was there an existing relationship between the parties?
7. Which parties were willing participants in the events leading up to the shoot?
If your example can be taken at face value, a DA might very well find the shooting to be justified. On the other hand, the answers to the questions above can and will be considered before any decisions are made.
Based on what I know about the laws of my state (not NM), and the evidence presented in the videos, I see this as a good self defense shooting. Even with the additional information about the shooter’s encounter with a woman earlier, I still see this as a good shoot. Additional information may change my opinion.
Final note: I watched the video of the woman getting assaulted, and to be frank, I am not seeing it. From what I see, this woman is actually hitting him in the head when he ends her attack by tossing her onto the ground.
Chasing down a guy you believe committed some sort of crime, then attacking him with deadly force. I remember an event like that a few weeks ago; the person attacked died. His name? Ahmaud Arbery. The attackers are now awaiting trial for murder one.
Yeah, actually, that would be a good shoot.
Keep coming up with those hypothetical fantasies of yours, though.
None of us are dumb enough to do that. Rule No. 1 of concealed carry is “do not escalate.” Somebody throws my wife to the ground and runs off, I call the cops, press charges, then sue his ass for damages and have his wages garnished for life. Chase him down for a street fight? Are you fucking stupid? Yes, I think you are.
The fascist ANTIFA black shirts have been given leeway to assault and pillage to their dark heart’s content in fetid dystopias like Portland and Seattle. They’ve been emboldened into unpunished mob assaults and behavior like this has been encouraged from vile Democrats. and it was only a matter of time before someone finally fought back. This Dwight fellow seems to think that this guy should have taken his beating/hospitalization, because, well, he was kind of a jerk and that set off the murderous mob.
We are lost, Dwight? There’s no virtue in being a victim, despite what you’ve been told.
Actually, there’s video out there of him assaulting another women in addition to the one that lit the crowd on fire. Not that it would matter to you all. He’s just a “jerk” who deserves to protect himself from the folks armed with skateboards who want to apprehend him and make sure he gets the justice he deserves. Wow.
And, Miguel. Seriously. We know you ain’t running after anyone. So, please.
Follow this one through the courts in the coming days, months…maybe years. Y’all might learn sumpin’.
So the right way to “apprehend” somebody ist to hit him in the head with a skateboard?
“The justice he deserves” You’re literally endorsing ruthless mob justice. People like you are the exact reason why I carry a firearm. Thanks for the validation, it’s refreshing. I’ll not even address your Ad Hominem attack on Miguel, as it’s a pretty clear sign you’ve run out of intellectual steam.
Wow… Dwight.
I am going to go out on a limb here and say that your average CWP holder knows the laws in their State’s better than you do. Again, I cannot speak for other states, but in my state, you have to get trained in the laws pertaining to use of deadly force in order to get your permit.
From what I can tell from your posts, your training is from TV.
“Actually, there’s video out there of him assaulting another women”
Irrelevant to the shooting. The woman was not involved.
“He’s just a “jerk” who deserves to protect himself from the folks armed with skateboards who want to apprehend him and make sure he gets the justice he deserves.”
The use of a skateboard as impact weapon made the case stronger for self defense.
“And, Miguel. Seriously. We know you ain’t running after anyone. ”
Hell no, not with this back. Plus, if the need arose that I have to stop somebody running away (yes, there is an exception), 1,100 feet per second would take care of that.
“Follow this one through the courts in the coming days, months…maybe years. Y’all might learn sumpin’.”
We are always learning. That is what gives us a great toolbox to use and analyze cases, possible scenarios and what to do.
And final resolution will be either really early (2-3 weeks) or in a year.
“I like this story. But you folks probably think the heroes could have all been shot legally.”
The narwhal tusk dude! Of course we know about that! We even have the USA Today AR15 “modification.
What part of “apprehending” someone involves a group of apprehenders chasing that someone down while screaming “we’re going to fucking kill you” and then assaulting him, including swinging a blunt object at his head.
I like this story. But you folks probably think the heroes could have all been shot legally.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/london-bridge-attack-bystanders-praised-for-breathtaking-heroism-in-taking-down-attacker-2019-11-30/
IOW Dwight, you now know you’re FOS and are trying to change the narrative.
You really are a special kind of stupid aren’t you
Actually, it’s man commits crime and gets chased down by bystanders who use force to hold him. But, yeah, totally different narrative for some and I’ll admit, in this example the bad guy doesn’t blow away the heroes.
Anyway, if I’m wrong I’ll stop in and ask for everyone’s forgiveness. One thing I won’t do is blame a biased judge or a biased state or effed up laws or The Deep State.
Grab your popcorn.
Are you saying that bystanders can use deadly force (bludgeon to the head) to apprehend someone who is running away after committing simple assault?
“…bystanders who use force to hold him. …”
Uhhh…. since when does “holding him” include shouting that you are going to f***ing kill him?”
Here’s a tip. Do a search, using your favorite search engine, on the term disparity of force. You might learn something.
And Dwight, your examples are not comparable. One pushed a lady (which is questionable whether that’s even a crime), the other one was STABBING people.
You have no idea what you are talking about. I can’t wait to follow how this plays out in the courts, but I know you won’t like the result and of course won’t come back here to admin you are wrong.
And I watched the videos. There were nothing. MAYBE some minor disorderly conduct at best for the first two pushes. For the last one, where the women gets thrown to the ground- she was pushing into him and he pulled her out of the way. So he was just defending himself from her anyway. AND even if that analysis is wrong, none of that matters for the attack later, because he retreated, TWICE, and still was attacked.
He will not be convicted.
I have seen enough videos to know that I don’t want to be near such confrontations because I’m afraid that I will have to shoot. And I know that I’ve trained to make sure the attack on me is stopped. Be that two 230gr Critical defense rounds or 24. I’m going to stop when the threat is neutralized.
So the question was asked: What would you do if your wife was attacked?
At that moment, if my wife was being attacked I would do my best to defend her within the law. That means that when my wife was being verbally attacked (did happen), my defense was to step between her and her attacker and just stand there. As the attacker moved to re-engage my wife, I moved to stay between her and my wife.
At no time did the threat raise to the level of needing to draw or even expose my weapon.
My job is/was to give my wife time and space to retreat. If the attack had turned physical I would have continued to defend her. If the physical threat rose to the level of me being afraid for my life or of grave physical harm, I would have drawn and fired. And only when the threat was ended would I have stopped.
If, at anytime the threat was ended before deadly force was used, that would be the end of it. If the threat turned and ran, that is a good outcome. Still need to contact the police and get my side on record. Regardless, it is not my place to try and chase down somebody that is no longer a threat.
The entire argument is a straw man. “Your wife is attacked. You chase after them and start beating them up. He shoots you.” Uhh, NOPE. My wife is attacked physically and I think there is a threat of grave physical harm or death, then the attacker is going to be shoot. If the attacker is running away, there is no longer a threat. I’m done. Your straw man falls apart.
Well, they’ve charged the shooter with aggravated battery with a deadly weapon.
No word on whether they charged Skateboard Boy with same.
On a guess, that’s from pushing the woman.
He was also charged with discharge of a firearm, which is pretty common in self-defense shootings.
We will see how this plays out. But given the thoroughly blue nature of the city and state, I wouldn’t want to be in his shoes.
I would argue, but then I remember what happened to Michael Strickland.
Cops need to decide whether they REALLY want to obey the whims of sociopaths who throw them under the bus at every opportunity.