encounter at wallyworld - calling all armchair QB's

[The Annoyed Man]

I hate to watch a 6:00 PM news flash, that says "The Annoyed Man' shot and killed a Marines soldier whom he had had a verbal argument with. The marines was not armed.

Surely, enough the news would not elaborate nor indicated that the deceased was verbally and physically aggressive.
It does not sound good no matter the way you look at it. It would cost tons of money to exonerate Mr. The Annoyed Man.

So, if that aggressor, who claims to be a marine (we don't really know for sure) comes around that cart and assaults me, you would prefer that I just take the beating? You've never met me, so you don't know what you're saying. I'm 58 years old, with the skeleton of an arthritic 75 year old. To not defend myself would be a death sentence — particularly if the aggressor really is a combat trained marine. Furthermore, lots of people are beaten to death every year by someone's bare fists. An assailant doesn't have to be armed with a deadly weapon for the victim to reasonably believe that deadly force in self defense is a reasonable response. And try this one on for size.... I don't particularly care if the aggressor is really a marine or not. If he's attacking me, he can be the man from Mars for all I care, but I am going to do whatever I have to do to defend myself — including deadly force if that is what I reasonably believe is called for under 9.32; and the press can go pound sand. A belligerent and drunk marine is not a hero, he's a belligerent and dangerous drunk. Marines put their pants on one leg at a time, just like anybody else. I respect and honor their service, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to let one beat the life out of me in a Walmart. Besides, I don't believe the guy was a marine. He was just trying to impress everyone around him. He was a dirtbag.

You are being unkind if you think that a physically less able person should have the same threshold of response for whenever a situation crosses over from being covered in 9.31 to being covered under 9.32 as would exist for someone more physically able. Physical ability and capacity opens up the gap between those two chapters of the code and affords the actor a greater range of options than exists for someone like me. For instance, I cannot run. Perhaps you can, but I cannot. So that option is no longer available to me. But beyond that, you would be wrong because you're failing to account for the actor's reasonable belief, which nobody but the actor can define for him.

But, placing myself in the OP's situation, there was no verbal argument. The aggressor and his friends were committing a breach of the peace. The OP asked the aggressor not to use that language and then he stopped talking. Everything up to and beyond that point was entirely the aggressor's responsibility.

I take it as an article of faith — and so should every single member of this board, for that matter — that if I am ever involved in a defensive shooting, it won't matter how righteous it is. The media will not tell the truth about what happened. Therefore, I don't spend 2 seconds worrying about what they will report. They. Weren't. There.. Period.

As to the expense of defending one's self in court, well, that is the reality of having a CHL. I am definitely not hoping to ever be involved in a shooting. I couldn't be happier if I live out the rest of my days without ever having to draw my gun. Who needs that kind of stress? But, if any one of us shoots an assailant, it is going to cost a pretty penny. That is simply another reality of CHL, and it isn't particular to just my own situation. So I can't let that worry me either. If the financial cost of self-defense was more important to me than the actual self-defense, then I probably shouldn't bother carrying a gun in the first place. The high cost of legal defense and an unfair press are simply part of the grim realities of having a CHL.

May I suggest that you take Charles Cotton's use of force seminar at the first opportunity?

[Beiruty]

May I suggest that you take Charles Cotton's use of force seminar at the first opportunity?

Surely will do. The more knowledgeable we are the better decision we can make.

I understand your point, and all the time, the disparity of force plays a great factor to justify the use of deadly force where the actor believes the use of deadly force is necessary and needed for self-defense.
A prosecutor can just throw at your defense, "wasn't the actor aware of availability (on the market) and the use of non-lethal weapon such as pepper spray or a teaser gun? A mere attempt to convince the jury that you deployed an excessive force.

As I mentioned earlier, I may be inclined to carry both my wife's pepper blaster and my EDC.
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
and one more:
See here : " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sheer pain.

[KD5NRH]

By the way, the Marines go out of their way to teach quality of character; I've seen too many who say they are -- but their actions prove otherwise.

Like any teaching, sometimes it just doesn't stick.

[G26ster]

TAM: I believe your situation is vastly different from the OP's. We had a discussion a while back about this (I'm the senior citizen with many of the same issues you have). But the OP is not either of us. He also stated he had a martial arts background. I simply find it hard to believe that someone would shoot the so-called marine for simply, "moving my cart," which he plainly stated in multiple posts. Legalities, what ifs, etc. aside, I also find it hard to believe that he would expose his son, and all the patrons of a crowded Walmart, to a possible multiple party shoot out for such a minor altercation. If a CHL is not a 'Batman License," which we know it isn't, I believe it is also not a, "I can shoot you if you scare me" license either. And yes, I plan to take Charles' seminar when it comes to the DFW area. Would be foolish not to. Respectfully, MHO.

[PeteCamp]

TAM....I hope you didn't think I was addressing your situation - or that of any of us senior adults. A young person (not to mention four) versus a senior adult creates a disparity of force and a fear for one's life that is clearly a defense for a deadly force response.

A prosecutor can just throw at your defense, "wasn't the actor aware of availability (on the market) and the use of non-lethal weapon such as pepper spray or a teaser gun? A mere attempt to convince the jury that you deployed an excessive force.

Charles, if you're still reading this, correct me if I am wrong. There is no provision for "excessive force" for a non-LEO. If you are in a lethal force situation and are justified in using it, there is no such thing as "more deadly." Even for an LEO, "excessive force" only applies to non-lethal force situations. You cannot get much more excessive than killing someone. I probably over-simplified this greatly, since I'm not a lawyer.

[OldSchool]

TAM....I hope you didn't think I was addressing your situation - or that of any of us senior adults. A young person (not to mention four) versus a senior adult creates a disparity of force and a fear for one's life that is clearly a defense for a deadly force response.

Pete, just to make sure others are aware: "I was in fear for my life" is not a legal defense, because it's not a high enough bar for gauging the use of deadly force. After having training from Charles' (and from others) I try to not ever use that phrase anymore.

[PeteCamp]

OldSchool....Correct. Thank you. I just pulled out my cheat sheet. Disparity of force is the real issue.

[The Annoyed Man]

Pete, I didn't take that as a criticism, but thanks for the reply anyway.

I also want to add a few things....

First:

• I am not advocating that the OP should have drawn his weapon, and he himself has said that he did not do so. But I also see nothing wrong at all with getting your hand surreptitiously into a position from which you can draw your weapon if you need to. He has said that the offender grabbed his cart, and that he (the OP) moved to keep the cart between him and his son, and the other guy. In other words, the other guy was maneuvering for an assault. It might have been just a bluff, but the only rational response was for the OP to assume the worst, and keep the cart between himself and the aggressor — which is what he did. You can't risk that it isn't a bluff.
  
  That begs the question: "What if the aggressor had succeeded in getting around the cart and closed the distance between the OP and himself?" There is no doubt that the OP may reasonably believe at this point, under 9.31, that use of force is going to be justified.This is where a true fork in the road takes place, and which road you take is going to depend on your age and physical capabilities. The OP has stated that he is a martial artist, so he has multiple options. At this point, it would be reasonable and entirely defensible for him to drop into a fighting stance and prepare to deflect the aggressor's attack. But, depending on the size of the other guy, and the volume of crazy, the OP might reasonably blade himself away from the attack and get a hand on his gun, and prepare to shoot from retention. OR, he might (if not burdened by the presence of his son) turn and run like the dickens.
  
  My point in my post immediately above is that the elderly or the infirm do not have all of those options, and therefore the gap between a 9.31 reaction and a 9.32 reaction is greatly diminished, but the actor's "reasonable belief" about the nature of the threat and how they must individually react to it is not diminished just because they have fewer options. In fact, their reasonable belief becomes far more important to their survival. So in my post previous to that one, I was not saying that the OP should have shot the guy. I was putting myself into the situation, and trying to analyze how I would perceive it exactly as described by the OP, not how I thought he should have reacted.

Second:

• I don't believe that politely asking someone who is offending everyone around them to please not use such language in the presence of children rises to the level of a verbal provocation. Had the OP offered to whup the other guy's butt if he didn't pipe down, THAT would be a verbal provocation. If the OP had called the other guy names and defamed his momma, THAT would be a verbal provocation. But simply asking in a polite manner if the guy could refrain from cussing in the presence of children, that is NOT a verbal provocation in my book, and I don't think a jury would think it was either. In fact, the other guy's loud profanity was a verbal provocation and constituted a disturbance of the peace. It was, in short, illegal behavior.
  
  We have a serious problem on our hands, and it is the degradation and coarsening of our culture. I believe that our approach to it should be independent of whether we chose to carry a weapon or not, and it is independent of whether or not our individual morality is based in a particular religious tradition, or simple common decency. The reason that the culture is degrading and coarsening is that it has no more guardians. Those who used to stand in that gap have died off, and adults today have, by and large, abdicated their responsibility to stand as guardians of the culture. This is part of the larger picture of which one symptom is that only a minority of eligible citizens ever actually vote today. Citizens have abdicated their responsibilities to the body politic and to the culture. And by the way, I am not talking about any kind of western cultural chauvinism. Loud, foul-mouthed, and aggressive punks were deemed unacceptable in ancient Rome, in ancient Athens, in Elizabethan England, in Colonial America, in Ming dynasty Beijing, and in modern Tel Aviv. It is true whether your culture is Christian, Muslim, pagan animist, or Buddhist. It is never acceptable.
  
  I ask myself every day, "If not me, then who?" This does not mean that I am Batman or a ninja. I am not that stupid. None of us is. But if a loud and foul-mouthed lout is making life uncomfortable for everyone around, I am going to register my disapproval. I'm not going to threaten. I'm not going to mad-dog him. But I am going to quietly, and with a smile, ask in a friendly manner if they can mind their language in front of the women and children. I have done this any number of times, and without exception, the offender was a little bit embarrassed, apologized, and they modified their behavior... ...and I thanked them for their cooperation.
  
  This is not a provocation. This is an example of a responsible adult, standing in the gap. Edmund Burke is alleged to have said (there is some historical doubt that he actually did) that all that is necessary for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing. Whether he said it or not, it is true. I'm not trying to toot my own horn. I just think that if more people were willing to speak up when confronted with this kind of behavior, we would see less of it. The fact that we see more and more of it is attributable, in part, to the fact that fewer and fewer people are willing to speak up to gently remind someone that their behavior is objectionable. You may not be able to fight the big picture, like crack addicted mothers who don't mother their cubs, and irresponsible men who abandon their children. But each one of us can, in small ways, contribute to the preservation of culture, and politely asking a profane person to tone it down for the audience's sake is one of those ways. Doing so doesn't make you a Batman wannabe. It makes you a guardian of the culture. That is a good thing.

[The Annoyed Man]

May I suggest that you take Charles Cotton's use of force seminar at the first opportunity?

Surely will do. The more knowledgeable we are the better decision we can make.

I understand your point, and all the time, the disparity of force plays a great factor to justify the use of deadly force where the actor believes the use of deadly force is necessary and needed for self-defense.
A prosecutor can just throw at your defense, "wasn't the actor aware of availability (on the market) and the use of non-lethal weapon such as pepper spray or a teaser gun? A mere attempt to convince the jury that you deployed an excessive force.

As I mentioned earlier, I may be inclined to carry both my wife's pepper blaster and my EDC.
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
and one more:
See here : " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sheer pain.

The prosecutor can say what he wants (assuming I don't get no-billed), but CHL law doesn't require me to carry non-lethal alternatives, and neither do 9.31 or 9.32. Now that doesn't mean that I'll never carry pepper spray, but I have worked in an emergency room situation, and I've seen the effect of pepper spray on someone who is in a PCP induced rage... There IS no effect. My point is that pepper spray and other non lethal alternatives are not always going to get you out of trouble, and the time spent deploying them may have been better spent deploying the gun instead. It all comes down to what you, as the person who is being assaulted, reasonably believes to be the nature of the threat, and the reasonable response that it calls for.

[J Wilson]

Maybe Im'e looking at this a little differently than most.I think if I was in the same situation while with my kid, and the same thing happened,I would just back my cart out and go to another checkout.As I get older,I want less confrontations in my life.Sometimes minding your own business will keep you out of a "Flee or Fight"situation.

[Oldgringo]

Maybe Im'e looking at this a little differently than most.I think if I was in the same situation while with my kid, and the same thing happened,I would just back my cart out and go to another checkout.As I get older,I want less confrontations in my life.Sometimes minding your own business will keep you out of a "Flee or Fight"situation.

Yepper, that or perhaps ask the oaf and his buddies if they'd like to go ahead of you. Another thought would be to ask the cashier to call the manager or security or the police or his/her momma or just scream.

Somehow, an altercation resulting in a shootout in a crowded checkout line at Wal-Mart, or anywhere else, really needs to be avoided 'cause it's gonna' really be bad/messy. Now then, if these clods had followed you into the parking lot and to your ride, that's a horse of a totally different color. But, had the cashier called the manager/security as you had asked, you could have had an escort.

[JNMAR]

Maybe Im'e looking at this a little differently than most.I think if I was in the same situation while with my kid, and the same thing happened,I would just back my cart out and go to another checkout.As I get older,I want less confrontations in my life.Sometimes minding your own business will keep you out of a "Flee or Fight"situation.

J Wilson, I am in total agreement with you. There's just too many ways things like this could go south in a hurry. I'm too old and have too many people who love and depend on me on a daily basis for me to want to interject myself into a situation that could very well require more time and money than I'm willing to give just to prove that I was justified and keep me out of the big house. This doesn't even take into consideration the prospect of having a totally innocent person injured or killed by a misguided bullet should the situation escalate to that point. I'm going to do everything I can, including minding my own business, to avoid getting into a gunfight in the front of a Walmart store much less a Costco.

One other point that is probably worth noting. Just on this forum where most are CHL holders and all are gun friendly, there's a sizable number who disagree with the justification for the threat of or use of deadly force in a situation such as this. Should ones actions result in a "True" bill by a grand jury, their future is not going to be determined by anything close to this "friendly" of a group of folks.

[Abraham]

It would seem we have two camps regarding this subject: Those dismayed by hearing foul language in public, but quietly pass on by and those who think it right, irrespective of the possible violent consequences to nobly attempt to stop foul language.

When one acts, if you will, in an adult gently scolding a poorly behaved child manner, in this case confronting four men in public regarding foul language, you may be morally right, but lawfully wrong if a shooting occurs.

So who is really morally correct if the result of this gently applied scolding ends up with dead or maimed people?

Personally, the only way I'd even consider stepping up to the plate of correcting a stranger in public would be if I wasn't carrying.

But, that's me.

[PeteCamp]

A thought or two on the issue of correcting bad manners or even illegal conduct and thus guarding the culture. I agree it is a good thing. But, based on my 10 years wearing a badge, I believe there is a very, very fine line between pulling it off successfully and esclating a situation to a point of violence. Let me cite a couple of examples.

I was on a SWAT call out late one night and a rather vocal and hostile crowd had started to gather across the street from our command post. I could hear cursing and threats being made and officers, carrying AR-15's and shotguns, were becoming increasingly wary of what might come about. The chief calmly reminded us that we were not there to confront the community, but to deal with a crime. We ignored the crowd and they eventually settled down without any serious confrontation. These were people with a classic case of simple bad manners and lack of respect.

An officer I know related his experience of stopping an individual for a very minor infraction. The individual exhibited no outward evidence of a problem, but was disrespectful to the officer - in the extreme. The officer tried to interject some civility. Every attempt was met with an increasing level of agitation which resulted in backup being called and finally the man had to be tasered at gunpoint. Later it was determined that he was high on PCP. This was a man who was a ticking bomb. That he didn't either injure or kill the officer or get himself killed was a miracle.

Here is the fine line. These people were all confronted by experienced, veteran police officers who have almost a sixth sense for "sniffing out" the real trouble cases. They got fooled. Some SWAT officers thought violence might be imminent with a hostile crowd, and a veteran officer failed to see signs of real danger in a simple encounter. If it is difficult for these folks to recognize the signs, how much more difficult is it for us in daily encounters at Wal Mart or on the freeway? You just don't always know who you are dealing with. Simple idiot or complete lunatic ready to go to war at the tiniest provocation?

So, it is admirable to guard the culture. But in doing so, we had better pray for the ability to recognize the ones we should just walk away from. Respectfully, just my humble opinion.

[Oldgringo]

After a show of 'empty' hands, the "NAYS" have carried the question and .