TexasCHLforum.com

Excaliber wrote:

TheReverend wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote: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?

you make an assumption here that the BGs are smart enough to realize the tactical advantage they would gain by positioning their van behind his car. Not all BGs are sophisticated, many of them are just plain dumb.

Or not so dumb. Here's how I read the situation from the details given here:

The tactic the guy who confronted the OP used was a good one for a strong arm robbery. It positioned the potential victim within a step or two of the approach guy in a location with very little maneuverability (except directly to the victim's rear), with non participant visibility of what was about to happen restricted to only the very narrow sight lines in direct alignment with the space between the two vehicles, effectively precluding witness worries.

The driver stayed in his seat to facilitate a quick getaway, and because the passenger's size gave these folks the confidence that a second set of hands wasn't needed outside the vehicle. The "Can I talk to you" line was similar to the "What time is it?" - a distractor intended to divert the intended victim's attention for a second or so and cause him to hesitate in place as the final approach is made. The clincher that this was not intended to be a conversational exchange was the raising and extension of the hands as the passenger closed in.

According to the account, the OP was in reasonable fear of an imminent robbery or attack on his person and in a disparity of force situation due to the size of the person who approached him. He used the threat of force to end the threat to himself.

Calling 911 with the tag number of the vehicle and the description of the subjects would have been a better move than calling the store manager because it may well have resulted in the arrest of persons wanted for other completed crimes (like eating potato chips, these guys never stop at just one). It also would have protected the OP against a cagey move by the suspects if they had called 911 to report that a crazy guy with a gun confronted them in the parking lot. Consider how you'd explain that you felt endangered to the point where the threat of deadly force was needed to resolve the situation, but it wasn't bad enough to report to the police.

More bad guys are becoming aware of this option, and it can get costly when they call 911 and you don't. Police figure the real victim will call to make a complaint, and will usually arrest the guy who didn't.

The Annoyed Man wrote: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?