• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Incident at walmart

hogeaterf6

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2010
Messages
381
Location
, ,
Funny how "yeah you done good" is feedback but "you stuck your nose and gun somewhere it didn't belong and lucky you didn't get arrested" is criticism. I'm glad it worked out for you and everyone involved, I really am. But I won't recommend that anyone else do what you did.


Your right. No one should help out a fellow American. We should all mind our own business as others are being assualted in front of us.
Yea thats good advice.
 

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
Why did you interject yourself into a situation that wasn't any of your business?

Why were you preparing to draw on an unarmed person?

In Michigan we're allowed to shoot in defense of another. We also cite the MI constitution which says we have the RKBA for defense of self and state. I didn't look to see what state the poster was in, but "defense of state" is applicable here.

Would I do it? Probably not unless the target of the assault was someone I cared about.

It was sadly predictable that someone would say what you said when I read the OP.
 

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
There was no indication in the OP's account that there was any deadly force being used and the proportionality was 3-1 against the "assaulter." The OP brandished and he was lucky the police gave him a pass.

Not all states require the threat if deadly force before a firearm can be used as "less than deadly force".
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
You are usually above the use of strawmen.

The OP did not use deadly force. He only heightened his state of readiness should the need for deadly force arise.

The previous poster merely point out correctly that some State laws allow deadly force to be used against less-than-deadly force. He isn't even saying that deadly force can be used in the situation described by the OP.

Seriously, you are better than that.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I cannot speak to NC law (as some have tried using another State's law), however, in Alabama, one cannot claim self-defense if he was the initial aggressor in the incident. So, in Alabama at least, the assaulter would not be justified.

ScOtt did not "introduce a gun." He prepared to introduce it, should the need present itself.

If the police arrive on the scene and ScOtt know it, he likely takes another tack. If he doesn't, I'm sure the police will immediately start issuing orders to take control of the situation.

That was better than the strawman you posted, but it is the end of the "what if" games that I will join you in playing, since no matter how I answer, more "what ifs" can be introduced. "What if" is just another Internet game.

I hope you step it up instead of playing strawman and what-if games. You are better than that.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I would venture to argue that, in this case, Mr. Hothead was not the initial agressor in the altercation ensuing between Mr. Scott and Mr. Hothead. Mr. Scott had no legitimate reason to introduce himself into the situation. In the altercation between Mr. Scott and Mr. Hothead only, it was Mr. Scott who initiated the contact. Mr. Scott had no authority to remove Mr. Hothead from the parking lot as Mr. Scott is not an employee or agent of Wal Mart, nor is he a LEO. He approched Mr. Hothead in an agressive manner and initiated the altercation between Mr. Hothead and himself.

The situation that Mr. Scott introduced himself into was already a 2 against 1 altercation with no weapons involved. That's a pretty weak argument for having to come to the aid of a defenseless victim when you are joining the side that has the 2 to 1 advantage.

ScOtt had a legitimate reason to introduce himself into the situation. (Again, I am not speaking of NC law; I am extending my discussion of AL law.) Force is allowable in defense of others. If ScOtt steps into a situation to defend another, that other is already in the commission of a crime and cannot claim self-defense, even against ScOtt.

This is not to say that he should have stepped in. I don't know the exact circumstances. If the situation was developing around ScOtt, I think he should have stepped in. If he was removed from the situation, he would have been better served calling 911, continuing to observe, and being prepared to step in if there was an imminent threat to life or limb.

If someone wants to address NC self-defense laws and whether an aggressor can claim self-defense and against whom, but, as I said, in AL, the aggressor could not claim self-defense, even against ScOtt, who can claim self-defense (or defense of another) in the situation.
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
I cannot speak to NC law (as some have tried using another State's law), however, in Alabama....

Then please stop speaking, because you are not adding anything meaningful or relevant to the discussion. You are just arguing for argument's sake, and diluting the meaningful content of this thread.

Please...


I hope you step it up instead of playing strawman and what-if games. You are better than that.

Actually, your constant referrals to AL law and how "if this happened in AL" is the biggest "strawman" of all. Your laws are different. They do not now, nor will the ever apply to this specific situation. State laws vary WIDELY on this issue, and believe me, NC laws are particularly byzantine and convoluted.

NC has VERY squirrelly self defense laws. We have odd "rules of engagement". We have a toothless "castle doctrine". We have NO "stand your ground" or "make my day" clause. We do not have civil immunity in a righteous shoot.

Believe me, I've studied NC law--up, down, sideways and backwards. We've got it better than MD (at least we are Shall Issue), but the Statutes and case law in NC are so full of "Jim Crow" that the bound volumes of the NCGC practically "caw" and sing "Mammy" when you pull them off the shelf at the library...

If you don't want to learn NC Statutes and Case Law, then I beg you--i PLEAD with you--PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, just drop out of this thread. You are only arguing for argument's sake, and adding nothing but confusion and noise to the thread.

My main issue with the OP is that he THINKS he knows the law because he's ex-Army EOD and currently an armed security guard. He has never stated whether or not he has a NC CHP--I doubt he does because if he had paid attention in even the WORST CHP class, he would know that his actions were treading dangerously close to "GAttTotP", and perhaps even "assault".

He was not "in fear of an immanent deadly threat on his life". The BG was not armed. The BG was outnumbered 3-1. And he was NOT a party to the original confrontation, but rather INSERTED himself into an already volatile situation involving people and circumstances he did not fully understand. Under NC Statutes and Case Law, he would be seen as, at best, a cowboy who didn't understand the law, and at worst, a vigilante'...

I still don't understand why he didn't--at the very least--get disarmed, cuffed, and sat in a cruiser for a while by the responding officer...
 
Last edited:

hogeaterf6

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2010
Messages
381
Location
, ,
At what point do you decide a 'fist fight' is to far for you to use deadly force? Once you are down and unconcious? Obvious most on here have never seen someone beat up enough that it required hospitalization.

Good thing im a lover and not a fighter!
 

Cracker

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
79
Location
West End - Richmond, Virginia, USA
Why did you interject yourself into a situation that wasn't any of your business?

Why were you preparing to draw on an unarmed person?

That is my only question as well... I'm glad your pistol stayed in it's holster. Next time, keep walking or watch. Seriously, you would have gotten a murder charge had you gone far enough to pull the trigger. Not wise.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
That is my only question as well... I'm glad your pistol stayed in it's holster. Next time, keep walking or watch. Seriously, you would have gotten a murder charge had you gone far enough to pull the trigger. Not wise.

And you would have gotten a bank robbery charge if you robbed a bank. Oh, wait, you didn't rob a bank. And he didn't pull the trigger. He just heightened his state of readiness in a situation that could escalate rapidly to the point where his drawing and firing would have been perfectly lawful. :rolleyes:
 

XD40coyote

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
706
Location
woman stuck in Maryland, ,
He was an old fashioned gentleman attempting to help another being harrassed by a big mouthed bully who then threatens to kill him? Not enough "real men" anymore these days, cops probably saw what he is too ( an old fashioned gentleman), and that is why he wasn't charged with anything. "New ways of thinking" and laws passed to those ways of thinking, may be moronic laws in certain cases, or in all cases, depending on what each is. I imagine this man also holds doors for women, and other gentlemanly things.

This forum is getting waaaay out of control these days, jumping on people for the slightest "wrongs" and citing law code left and right and up and down and sideways for the most miniscule of things.

Why did you interject yourself into a situation that wasn't any of your business?

Why were you preparing to draw on an unarmed person?
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
"New ways of thinking" and laws passed to those ways of thinking, may be moronic laws in certain cases, or in all cases, depending on what each is. I imagine this man also holds doors for women, and other gentlemanly things.

I hold doors for women. I say "Please" and "Thank You", and "Sir" and "Ma'am". I'm pretty cordial, polite, and old-fashioned most of the time.

I'm also fully aware of the INCREDIBLY convoluted, nonsensical, and squirrelly laws we have here in NC regarding self defense. We're just trying to get it through to the OP that fondling your firearm or holster AFTER you've inserted yourself into a "situation" is perhaps NOT a good idea for a number of reasons.

One, it might get you shot (by the BG or a cop). Two, it will VERY likely result in a GAttTotP charge. And Three, if you think that you may need to pull your gun AFTER inserting yourself in a situation, perhaps you need to think twice about inserting yourself into that situation...


This forum is getting waaaay out of control these days, jumping on people for the slightest "wrongs" and citing law code left and right and up and down and sideways for the most miniscule of things.

NC law (Statutory and Common Law) are notoriously convoluted, byzantine, and quirky on the issue of self defense. We have no "stand your ground" or "make my day" clause. Our "Castle Doctrine" is essentially toothless, and leaves a LOT of wiggle room for perps and their families to sue you. We have no Civil Immunity in justified S-D shoots. And of course, there's always the "race card" that seems to get played more and more in NC self-defense shootings to some effect.

Interestingly enough, although our laws are historically full of Jim Crow leftovers, the Courts and some municipal LEAs (especially in the more "urban" cities) just hate the idea of an armed citizenry PERIOD--regardless of race.

The OP is a security guard. He is ex-Army EOD. He's obviously someone who thrives on adrenalin, and has a bit of a "saviour" complex, or else he wouldn't be in those fields.

We're just trying to save him from the legal nightmare of some future "cowboy" episode that will VERY LIKELY not pan out favorably for him. He's admitted to not knowing a lot about the subtleties of NC Self Defense Law. We're just trying to show him how the law sees things, since he is either unwilling or incapable of researching this himself...

I don't like the laws here in NC. I think a LOT of our "self defense" laws (Statute and Common) are completely BS, and give a LOT of wiggle room for the perps and their survivors. Our laws give a TON of wiggle room for interpretation for LEOs and Prosecutors.

But the law is the law. Either you abide by it, or you'd better have REALLY deep pockets and a VERY open personal calendar if you want to change the law through the courts...
 
Last edited:

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
You are usually above the use of strawmen.

The OP did not use deadly force. He only heightened his state of readiness should the need for deadly force arise.

The previous poster merely point out correctly that some State laws allow deadly force to be used against less-than-deadly force. He isn't even saying that deadly force can be used in the situation described by the OP.

Seriously, you are better than that.

Indeed, when threatened with bodily harm Michigan authorizes you to use less than deadly force. Example: shoot the guy's kneecaps.

What's more is Michigan law shelters you from subsequent civil liability from the person who you shot in self-defense-defense of another.
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
Indeed, when threatened with bodily harm Michigan authorizes you to use less than deadly force. Example: shoot the guy's kneecaps.

What's more is Michigan law shelters you from subsequent civil liability from the person who you shot in self-defense-defense of another.


That's all fine and well, however, under NC common law (there is no Statutory "deadly force use" definition), Deadly force, or the perceived threat of deadly force is only justifiable as an answer to an "imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault".

A punch to the face in a parking lot scuffle does not meet that requirement...

And also, NC does NOT have Civil Immunity in justifiable self-defense shootings.

Know the law...
 

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
That's all fine and well, however, under NC common law (there is no Statutory "deadly force use" definition), Deadly force, or the perceived threat of deadly force is only justifiable as an answer to an "imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault".

A punch to the face in a parking lot scuffle does not meet that requirement...

And also, NC does NOT have Civil Immunity in justifiable self-defense shootings.

Know the law...

Now I have a reason to think twice about visiting NC. Thanks!
 

acmariner99

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
655
Location
Renton, Wa
Major Grey Area

A lot of this depends on the state you are in. In Arizona, if a verbal threat and physical advancement on the part of the attacker was made, a defensive display would have been justified. But since the OP's story is not in AZ, its kind of a moot point. I don't think I would have gotten involved, there was no real reason to as from how I understand the situation it sounded more like a heated argument with a few threats thrown in. No weapon on the part of the attacker was seen or used. In most states, three elements need to be present to justify the "threat or use of deadly force" and threat of force constitutes brandishing if not justified:

1) A threat
2) A means (weapon)
3) Intent

The scenario the OP described seems grey to me. There was no reason to get involved, but since he did and a threat against his life was made and the attacker apparently moved towards him -- but the BG was outnumbered 3 to 1 so disparity of force comes into question. Had it been me, I probably would have watched from a distance or call 911.
 

Ivan Sample

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
Messages
295
Location
Louisville, Kentucky, USA
Well, first of all good job sc0tt for what you did at Wal-mart. I believe that you save some folks from getting beat up or possible death in this situation. When this perp threaten your life, I feel that you did the right thing regardless if he had a weapon or not. The intent was their to do you and others great bodily harm.

This is for you folks that like bash others in here-you should STOP STOP IT. You folks think you know every damn thing thats going on when in reality you don't know **** and it really makes me sick to my f ing stomach to read about someone posting something that happen to them. By the way who gives a fat rat ass if it is posted in the wrong area, are you MODS of this forum-hell no, so who gives a **** on what you think anyway (Navy T and others who like to judge others in here) I agree with sc0tt this thread needs to be closed and that people that hi-jack threads should be banned. This forum is to help not criticize or bash folks on what they think or experience.

If the MODS don't get a grip of all the ******** thats going on here-this forum is going to go by the wayside and all those folks that help get it to point, they work would have been useless do to hi-jacker in here. If you have something that you want to say to me-PM me and I will give you my address and we can talk face to face like real men do. Stop hiding behind a computer and keyboard. With that all said and done-I feel alot better!
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
1. Unless the situation described in the OP developed around me, I probably would have called 911 and continued to observe until there was an imminent threat to life or limb.

2. I see nothing wrong with the OP's actions. He was personally threatened and did NOT use deadly force. He merely heightened his state of readiness, which was reasonable under the circumstances--even if most of us would not have inserted ourselves.

3. I do not approve of nor agree with the unfounded bashing of the OP.

4. That being said, this is NOT a moderation issue. The bashing may be a bit hyperbolic, but there is still valuable information in the posts that bash. After-incident discussions like this allow us all to grow a little bit in our preparedness should we face the possibility of having to use our firearms.
 
Top