Black Friday Shopper uses his CCW to defend himself.

SpringerXDacp said:

What about the folks who have to wear corrective lenses, or have partials/dentures that cost thousands of dollars for those without insurance, or hearing aids that also cost thousands of dollars for those without insurance. Law abiding, retired, working, or disabled folks shouln't have to MMA their way through life.

Click to expand...

No offense but, I don't think you would get very far with that argument with a judge or jury. Replacing expensive items usually does not give an excuse for lethal force.

ArmyVet73 said:

I'm a walking disabled Vet with a broken back and drawing down with deadly force on a guy who just punched me in the face would be justified in my opinion, if I could recover from the pain of being knocked to the ground that is.

I agree that fear of getting a continued beating with the chance of enough bodily injury is enough of a reason to draw in that situation even if your not disabled.

Click to expand...

First off, thank you for your service to our country and your sacrifice.

I am in a similar boat as you since I have osteoarthritis in both knees. I did have a total knee replacement 7 1/2 weeks ago but I am still at a serious disadvantage to an attack. Such disparity would put me in serious jeopardy.

Why are some folks saying that as long as a person os "able-bodied" it is OK to be assaulted and battered?

As to the extent of the injury, that only addresses a small part of the question of whether or not the guy was justified in drawing his handgun.

The fact is, we just don't know enough to know if he was justified or not.

But somehow that does not seem to stop anybody from forming a judgement and expressing it.

I know what I would do if I found myself in that situation. You will have to wait to read the newspaper report to find out what it would be. But because I believe going shopping in places where there are large crowds of emotional people is a violation of "Don't go stupid places with stupid people to do stupid things" you probably will never read about me being involved in something like that.

stay safe.

WalkingWolf said:

No offense but, I don't think you would get very far with that argument with a judge or jury. Replacing expensive items usually does not give an excuse for lethal force.

Click to expand...

In Michigan, you can not use lethal force to protect property whether it's a dog, horse, a walking cane, eye glasses, etc, but the cost ($$$) is not the point. Getting hit in the face while utilizing/wearing corrective lenses, hearing aids, or plates/dentures, can inflict serious, permanent damage. It's bad enough to be attacked, especially by a worthless dirtbag such in this case, and then add to that the financial burden of replacing those damaged, lost, etc, items. The victim in this case, was only punched once in the mouth (as far as I know) and was not charged.

"We don't see this very often," Officer Matthew Porter said, adding that Salame did not break the law by displaying the weapon. "He was within his rights."
Police confiscated the gun, which was loaded and had one round in a chamber, the report says.
Salame reportedly showed proof that he had a concealed handgun license, and he told officers that he pulled the gun out to defend himself because he was punched in the face by Alejandro Alex, 35. Salame, who did not fire the weapon, said he feared further injury by Alex.


​

Click to expand...

MikeTheGreek said:

I would not have drawn, to me a punch doesn't justify even contemplating deadly force, and I would only draw my firearm if I was ready to use it.

Should have just walked away..or decked the guy.

Click to expand...

I used to say the same thing... until an attack where I should've drawn my gun and didn't. There was head trauma and now I have a permanent injury. People tried to tell me (on various forums) that It'd be a mistake not to draw in those close-in situations. I had disarmed persons/defended myself before with my hands so, in my hubris, I thought that I'd always be fine.

It only takes one "lucky" hit by a perpetrator to cause serious damage. I'll never let that happen to me again. I learned my lesson. Hopefully, others take heed.

tattedupboy said:

but in general, I still believe no self-respecting, able bodied man should rely ONLY on his gun to protect himself. Learn how to throw a punch, and learn how to take one as well.

Click to expand...

Bad mindset... I used to have the same... bad advice for anyone.

JmE said:

I used to say the same thing... until an attack where I should've drawn my gun and didn't. There was head trauma and now I have a permanent injury. People tried to tell me (on various forums) that It'd be a mistake not to draw in those close-in situations. I had disarmed persons/defended myself before with my hands so, in my hubris, I thought that I'd always be fine.

It only takes one "lucky" hit by a perpetrator to cause serious damage. I'll never let that happen to me again. I learned my lesson. Hopefully, others take heed.


Bad mindset... I used to have the same... bad advice for anyone.

Click to expand...

It is a universal truth that experience wakes us up to reality. Your experience proves the point. One never knows where that sudden and abrupt punch is going to land, how much damage it's going to do, and what will continue to take place after the initial hit. Some of us on this site, and this forum, are already at a disadvantage because of some physical condition or maybe even age or sex. A well thrown punch to those folks could result as it did to you; lasting and permanent injury. That is one of the definitions used to describe "serious bodily harm" which is cause to use whatever force is needed, up to and including deadly force. The threat of suffering broken bones, burns, disfigurement, temporary unconsciousness, contusions, lacerations, permanent injury all fall within the scope of serious bodily harm.

The currently popular "game" of knockout being played by groups of young toughs is proof enough of the need to be armed and ready to pull that gun when needed. But it is also proof that perhaps one of the things we as members on this website have been saying for some time, that carrying concealed makes you look just like any other potential victim. Though we will never know for sure, that openly carrying sidearm probably is cause for those young punks who see it to seek other victims for their fun.

If that carrier had been OC'ing, one has to wonder if he would have ever been attacked in the first place... providing his attacker saw his firearm beforehand. My guess is more than likely the attack would not have taken place, but who knows?

SouthernBoy said:

....

If that carrier had been OC'ing, one has to wonder if he would have ever been attacked in the first place... providing his attacker saw his firearm beforehand. My guess is more than likely the attack would not have taken place, but who knows?

Click to expand...

Given the setting, my guess is that nobody would have noticed an openly carried handgun unless the guy stepped out of line and then drew attention to himself.

Remember, most holsters that are used for OC do not come with blinking LEDs* drawing attention to them.

stay safe.

* Us Oulde Pharts used to say "neon sign" but they are, sadly, passing into the dim vault of history even as you read this.

I like that in Utah the State legislature has specifically made it legal to BRANDISH, announce, show, or draw your firearm when done in an effort to either stop or de-escalate a threat or actual assault.... Here is the link....

http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE76/htm/76_10_050600.htm

And the linked law....

76-10-506. Threatening with or using dangerous weapon in fight or quarrel.
(1) As used in this section, "threatening manner" does not include:
(a) the possession of a dangerous weapon, whether visible or concealed, without additional behavior which is threatening; or
(b) informing another of the actor's possession of a deadly weapon in order to prevent what the actor reasonably perceives as a possible use of unlawful force by the other and the actor is not engaged in any activity described in Subsection 76-2-402(2)(a).
(2) Except as otherwise provided in Section 76-2-402 and for those persons described in Section 76-10-503, a person who, in the presence of two or more persons, draws or exhibits a dangerous weapon in an angry and threatening manner or unlawfully uses a dangerous weapon in a fight or quarrel is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.
(3) This section does not apply to a person who, reasonably believing the action to be necessary in compliance with Section 76-2-402, with purpose to prevent another's use of unlawful force:
(a) threatens the use of a dangerous weapon; or
(b) draws or exhibits a dangerous weapon.

Amended by Chapter 361, 2010 General Session
Download Code Section Zipped WordPerfect 76_10_050600.ZIP 2,571 Bytes

That might save some lives, IMHO.

tattedupboy said:

Let's not forget that this happened in Texas, where the open carrying of handguns is illegal. On the one hand, it pleases me that the guy who got punched was able to end it without further incident, but at the same time, I feel that as able-bodied men, we should be able to take a punch and throw a punch. Responding to a punch by drawing a gun rather than jus fighting back, is the very reason gun crime is so high in many urban areas.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Click to expand...

Just how much of a liberal twerp are you? The very phrase "Gun Crime" is a ridiculous statement. There is crime and there is crime during which a firearm or other weapon is used. There is no such thing as gun crime except in the minds of liberals, the brainwashed and idiots.

Ok, now that my rant is over. Quit using that ridiculous phrase. It does not become you.

Why do you not consider drawing a gun to be fighting back? If the act of drawing it ends the threat, that is the best possible outcome. If not, the second best outcome is the threat being stopped because it has a hole in it.

That is not to say that the drawing of the firearm was the appropriate level of response. I don't know; I wasn't there.

eye95 said:

Why do you not consider drawing a gun to be fighting back? If the act of drawing it ends the threat, that is the best possible outcome. If not, the second best outcome is the threat being stopped because it has a hole in it.

That is not to say that the drawing of the firearm was the appropriate level of response. I don't know; I wasn't there.

Click to expand...

I was not either, and think that is important. We just cannot know all the circumstances without accurate reporting~and I have my doubts there is such a thing as accurate reporting. What I can say is I hate crowds, and especially crowds of pushy shoppers. I would rather pay more than go through that.

I wasn't there either...

But, if someone were to punch me in the face then they're real close, too close, and intend on doing potential serious harm to me. Not exhaustive, but, the elements that would proceed a potential draw by me would be that they indicated an intention to do violence upon my person, they had the ability, and they were within a reasonable distance to do so. What I gather from the article is that the (assumed) aggressor indicated violent intent (threw a punch), had the ability (landed a punch), and was within distance to carry out that violence (again, the landed punch). In that situation, unless I was the aggressor and/or I could not quickly find a reasonable and safe retreat, I'd have to conclude that I would draw.

WalkingWolf said:

I was not either, and think that is important. We just cannot know all the circumstances without accurate reporting~and I have my doubts there is such a thing as accurate reporting. What I can say is I hate crowds, and especially crowds of pushy shoppers. I would rather pay more than go through that.

Click to expand...

I know for a fact that the reporting is inaccurate. I heard another report that the person who pulled the gun did so to get to the head of the line. Both stories cannot be reconciled, so at least one is incorrect. However, even assuming all the facts in the referenced story are true, we still can't know whether it was appropriate to draw the firearm. If the carrier was 90 both in weight and age, and the puncher was 220 and 22 respectively, then a .45 1911 is in order.

tattedupboy said:

Let's not forget that this happened in Texas, where the open carrying of handguns is illegal. On the one hand, it pleases me that the guy who got punched was able to end it without further incident, but at the same time, I feel that as able-bodied men, we should be able to take a punch and throw a punch. Responding to a punch by drawing a gun rather than jus fighting back, is the very reason gun crime is so high in many urban areas.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Click to expand...

Can you please cite a reputable source for the statement in your last sentence? I'm not buying it.

EMNofSeattle said:

Why? why should "able bodied" men have to fistfight over that kind of thing? how would you define able bodied?

No, I think a quick show of force to end the fight is nessecary, leave this "able body" and "fair fight" crap to cheesy samurai movies, I don't fight fair, I fight to win, and if showing off the level of force I'm willing to use at the start causes the other guy to re-consider then that's a win for everyone.

Click to expand...

DITTO

There is no such thing as a fair fight.

Ever wonder why there was never a nuclear war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union? For exactly that reason....because both sides had sufficient force available to deter the other from being stupid.

tattedupboy said:

Let's not forget that this happened in Texas, where the open carrying of handguns is illegal. On the one hand, it pleases me that the guy who got punched was able to end it without further incident, but at the same time, I feel that as able-bodied men, we should be able to take a punch and throw a punch. Responding to a punch by drawing a gun rather than jus fighting back, is the very reason gun crime is so high in many urban areas.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Click to expand...

I heard a saying once or twice originating unknown to me--- If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics SUCK! ( emphasis mine)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I gotta agree with the guy.

Don't hit me.

When I lived in Arizona I OC'd everywhere. There's only a few times a CC'd, very few. OC'ing got me out of three potential situations just by the presence of "Achilles". Anyway, back to CC'ing on black friday. WHY WAS HE OUT ON BLACK FRIDAY! One thing I've learned about risk management is managing the risk in places of potential conflict/danger/masses of consumers. It's just not practical to be out on that night. especially as a gun owner. I say let the sheeple do their sheeple thing. Do I miss out on some good deals? probably. is it worth not getting punched in the face? absolutely.

And on to OC in public/mass hysteria. Risk management. is OC'ing in an electrified crowd a good idea? that's a lot of bodies bumping on your piece. I don't like the sound of that. Is it a deterrent in that situation? who knows. One thing I do know, is that I would not be comfortable carrying in that manner in that situation. I'd either avoid the situation entirely (which I do) or CC.

Malcolm said:

Don't hit me.

When I lived in Arizona I OC'd everywhere. There's only a few times a CC'd, very few. OC'ing got me out of three potential situations just by the presence of "Achilles". Anyway, back to CC'ing on black friday. WHY WAS HE OUT ON BLACK FRIDAY! One thing I've learned about risk management is managing the risk in places of potential conflict/danger/masses of consumers. It's just not practical to be out on that night. especially as a gun owner. I say let the sheeple do their sheeple thing. Do I miss out on some good deals? probably. is it worth not getting punched in the face? absolutely.

And on to OC in public/mass hysteria. Risk management. is OC'ing in an electrified crowd a good idea? that's a lot of bodies bumping on your piece. I don't like the sound of that. Is it a deterrent in that situation? who knows. One thing I do know, is that I would not be comfortable carrying in that manner in that situation. I'd either avoid the situation entirely (which I do) or CC.

Click to expand...

I OC'd on Black Thursday AND Black Friday. Risk management involved wearing a level two retention holster, heavy leather belt with a double prong buckle, and constantly "sweeping" my weapon with my strong arm....all my normal everyday carry routine. My situational awareness wasa bit higher due to the number of people in the store.

There were no "bodies bumping" though perhaps that's because the entire "metro" area is only about 200k in population.

If you put a bunch of rstrictions on yourself when you carry your weapon, you may as well not carry one and just avoid "problem areas"....I mean if you're going to avoid them anyway, why hassle with packing? Now I wouldn't recommend just diddy boppin down into xyz's gang turn OC'ing just 'cause you're packing, but why avoid a simple "American Tradition" of going out shopping?