TexasCHLforum.com

OldSchool wrote:I finally have to ask: What did he mean by "I'm going to live in this car"? I have thought of several possible meanings, none of which makes sense.

Read it as as "I get to LIVE in this car, or die outside of it." He chose "live."

EDITED TO ADD: and I see that Jim beat me to it by about 45 minutes!

KD5NRH wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:The first is that, if they really intended harm, it seems that their best tactic would have been to pull up behind your car, blocking you in.

Actually, their best tactic would have been to have a sniper on the roof of the store with a suppressed PSG-1 and subsonic ammo to drop him quickly and quietly just as soon as he was close enough for the ground team to grab his stuff and leave.

You see, if BGs used the best tactics, we wouldn't bother carrying because we'd never have a chance to get a concealed weapon into action. Since they screw up on a pretty regular basis in planning as well as execution, the good guys can often win when properly prepared.

Good one!

Of course, you're correct. I was merely trying to make the mental connection between the idea of two guys, cruising a parking lot looking for a victim, which is a planned thing, and the way they carried it out, which seems like they didn't give much thought to what it would take to get the best results. I wasn't saying they weren't intending harm. I was saying that it seemed like there would have been a better tactical approach for them to take if they were intending harm.

However, I think that Excaliber pointed out rather successfully that what they actually did might have been pretty smart for what they were trying to accomplish... ...smarter than what I thought of (which means that I don't make a very good criminal predator), and certainly within the means of a couple of guys who happened not to be in possession of a suppressed PSG-1 at the moment.

BTW, even if bad guys always used the best tactics, I would still carry because it would give me more options than being disarmed would offer. I don't give up just because the other guy is well prepared.

As usual, Excaliber brings clarity to the situation. Thanks for the explanation.

shortysboy09 wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:For those reasons, it seems purely in hindsight that the passenger was more likely going to try to hit you up for some money for gas or some other nonsense. You point out that both men were african-americans, but the intimidating factor seems to to be the sheer size of the passenger, rather than his race (hopefully).

Hindsight being 20/20, is it at all possible that the intimidation was due more to the passenger's size than to any purposefully threatening action on his part?

This is a very good point. However, wouldn't you think if he was simply going to ask for something he would so from the passenger seat of the truck and wouldn't feel the need to exit the vehicle?

An equally valid point, but that said, from the OP description it sounds like when the "perp" exited his vehicle, his back was to his own open door, while Kestrel had the tactical advantage of being able to back up toward the rear of the vehicles and escape into the parking access lane. OTH, the distance was waaaaaaaay too close for comfort, and if he had been aggressive, the perp likely could have closed the distance before Kestrel could have gotten a shot off.

That's why I'm refusing to criticize. My earlier point is simply to how I would have handled it if I were trying to rob someone in a parking lot. The black guys in question were behaving illogically if an assault was their intention. That doesn't mean they weren't planning an assault. It might just mean that they were poor planners. Like I said in my earlier post, I might have done exactly what Kestrel did. I'm just trying to look at all the possible angles and see what I can learn from his experience.

I'm not going to criticize. I wasn't there, and I might very well have reacted the same way you did. But, several thoughts do occur to me.

The first is that, if they really intended harm, it seems that their best tactic would have been to pull up behind your car, blocking you in. Pulling into the space next to yours, particularly since the driver never got out, but only the passenger, seems counter-intuitive for a developing assault. It would make it more difficult for them to get out of their vehicle to attack you, and it would make them as much trapped by narrow spaces as it did to you. OTH, if they stop across the back of your car, they have you boxed in; they enjoy the tactical advantage; and they are better situated for a quick getaway.

For those reasons, it seems purely in hindsight that the passenger was more likely going to try to hit you up for some money for gas or some other nonsense. You point out that both men were african-americans, but the intimidating factor seems to to be the sheer size of the passenger, rather than his race (hopefully).

Hindsight being 20/20, is it at all possible that the intimidation was due more to the passenger's size than to any purposefully threatening action on his part?