Friend pulled a gun yesterday

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I must be the only one who thinks your friend did the right thing.

The attacker was obviously looking for trouble. He pursued your friend while shouting threats, shoved the girlfriend out of the way, and ignored repeated commands to stop. It's clear that an attack was imminent.

If the attacker really is twice the size of your friend, then your friend could argue disparity of force. Anyone who has studied hand to hand fighting knows that skill and training is no substitute for size and strength. If anything, his marine training might be grounds for reinforcing your friend's position. He could argue that as a marine, he knew that fighting hand to hand against a superior opponent was a dangerous proposition and likely to result in serious injury. Besides, what's to say that the bigger attacker wasn't also a marine or martial artist or whatever?

Your friend obviously couldn't flee. His girlfriend was on the ground after having been attacked by the madman. Fleeing would have left her to face the madman alone. His truck was in the middle of landing a boat, so they couldn't just jump in and drive off.

So, we have an obvious imminent attack by an attacker who ignored repeated commands to stop, we have demonstrated physical aggression against innocents, we have disparity of force, we have no opportunity to flee. Of course your friend should have grabbed his weapon!

I think a skilled lawyer should be able to get your friend off without too much difficulty. I trust that your friend has already hired a good attorney, right?

 

[jlbraun]

Anyone who has studied hand to hand fighting knows that skill and training is no substitute for size and strength. If anything, his marine training might be grounds for reinforcing your friend's position. He could argue that as a marine, he knew that fighting hand to hand against a superior opponent was a dangerous proposition and likely to result in serious injury.

Indeed. I routinely see 150# black belts get whomped by 250# green belts (this is in MMA. Rules against clinching or takedowns tend to work to favor the blackbelts). Technique can only overcome power and weight disparity to a certain point. There's a reason that weight classes exist in boxing.

Additionally, even if you're a trained martial artist as the smaller guy, the bigger guy need only get in one lucky hit to put you down due to his greater power. Then you're on the ground, possibly unconscious.

However, I don't think we have all the facts here.

 

[General Geoff]

get a good lawyer. Carrying without a permit is a SERIOUS violation no matter where you are.

Not in VT or AK.

 

[tmajors]

Not in VT or AK.

Not in Idaho either. It's like a $300 fine and you get your gun back after you pay the fine. That's IF they even bother charging you for it.

 

[araiford]

You all assuming that the "madman" didn't have a good reason for wanting to kick the guys ass in the first place.

If someone endangered my child, I damn sure would be mad enough to confront that person.

I don't think the "Marine" is as innocent as the OP makes him out to be.

 

[tmajors]

You all assuming that the "madman" didn't have a good reason for wanting to kick the guys ass in the first place.

If someone endangered my child, I damn sure would be mad enough to confront that person.

I hope you're just playing devil's advocate. I had a much larger guy come after me because when I was backing my car out of a parking spot my car got near his motorcycle in the parking spot opposite mine. How "near" did it get? About ten feet...not even close enough to really call "near".

That's just one instance. I got a lot more of cases where people go into kick-the-other-guys-ass mode for no real good reason at all.

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

If you approach someone in an aggressive manner, shouting threats at him, shoving people aside to get close to him, ignoring his instructions to stay back, then you aren't merely "confronting" him. You've given him reason to fear for his safety. You've given him reason to defend himself against your attack. That kind of behavior will get you Darwined.

Even if you think you have "good reason" for wanting to kick someone's ass, you gotta expect the other guy to defend himself. He isn't going to take a beating just because you think you have "good reason" for giving him one.

 

[03Shadowbob]

Anyone who has studied hand to hand fighting knows that skill and training is no substitute for size and strength.

Indeed. I routinely see 150# black belts get whomped by 250# green belts (this is in MMA. Rules against clinching or takedowns tend to work to favor the blackbelts). Technique can only overcome power and weight disparity to a certain point.

I do not necessarily agree with you guys. Sure weight and strength plays a part in being able to hurt someone however I have seen plenty of small guys beat the tar out of a lot bigger guys because of their God given abilities and experience.

 

[frank23185]

To all you guys who think you can shoot someone for threatening to whoop your butt (especially if you precipitated the incident), I wish you good luck.
(Say hello to Bubba for me).

 

[tnieto2004]

To all you guys who think you can shoot someone for threatening to whoop your butt (especially if you precipitated the incident), I wish you good luck.
(Say hello to Bubba for me).

Good morning. Please show where anyone said you can shoot someone for threatening?

You also AGAIN forgot he assaulted a woman.

 

[Big Calhoun]

I didn't see this brought up and may have very well missed it.

When Texas changed the law to add 'travelling' to the statutes (carrying in your car without having a CHL), it was widely known that there was some 'confusion' that lead to, shall we say, uneven enforcement.

During that whole debate, I thought it was explicitly clarified that to be covered under that travelling clause, the weapon had to be A. concealed and B. you had to be in your vehicle.

So, assuming this gent did not have a CHL and was not travelling by automobile at the time of the incident, it would seem the possession charge is warranted, even though somewhat unfair?

Plus, I don't know how much this would play into it, but I seem to recall last year that it was also clarified, at least for tax purposes, that a boat or even a 'houseboat' was not an extension of ones residence. IIRC, it came up with regards to someone owing back taxes or bankruptcy and he tried to stop siezure of his boat stating that it was his primary residence, but it didn't fly.

Not that I agree with the overall situation. Kind of seems like a Catch-22.

 

[chaim]

Given what we know, he may have been justified to draw if the only thing he had with him was a gun. It is true that a fist fight can leave a man dead. However, that isn't the norm (in a true "disparity of force" incident I was attacked by 5 guys, coming in and out of consciousness while guys were screaming to kill me, and I'm still here, no brain damage and no disabilities). If you were being approached in a threatening manner by ONE guy who is larger than you, and he's pushed your girlfriend out of the way because he is after you, would you shoot him? If the answer is "no" then you definately shouldn't have drawn. If "yes", well it is a tough call. Because it probably isn't a life and death situation he probably shouldn't shoot (and if he shouldn't shoot, he shouldn't draw), but he also shouldn't let the other guy attack him either. Sounds like a poster case for having other options at hand (start with pepper spray or even better a Taser, if the guy is so determined that he keeps on coming, moving to deadly force like a knife or gun is much more justified).

You all assuming that the "madman" didn't have a good reason for wanting to kick the guys ass in the first place.

If someone endangered my child, I damn sure would be mad enough to confront that person.

You know, I was thinking the whole time, that even if no one was in the right, the other guy was more wrong. I'd bet that even here in MD no jury would convict a guy who argued that he couldn't run (girlfriend is on the ground due to being knocked down by attacker, brother in boat, he can't abandon them) and due to the guy's larger size he is in danger of life and limb (maybe having a trauma specialist discuss a case of a guy who died or was brain damaged due to a fist fight may be helpful). In TX I figured it was a 'no brainer'.

However, this poster brings up an interesting point. We are forgetting the very beginning- the friend came too close to the guy's son in the water. Once he says the friend endangered his son, I bet he'll be the one with the jury's sympathy. Once that happens, all bets are off.

 

[frank23185]

"Good morning. Please show where anyone said you can shoot someone for threatening?"
The ex-marine pulled a gun on a guy who threatened to kick his butt, did he not? Was the guy actually beating on him, or was threatening to do so.


"You also AGAIN forgot he assaulted a woman."
He pushed a woman out of the way, who voluntarily inserted herself into a quarrel between to men.

 

[winchester62]

So, assuming this gent did not have a CHL and was not travelling by automobile at the time of the incident, it would seem the possession charge is warranted, even though somewhat unfair?

So what your saying is that if someone legally has a LOADED weapon in the car and uses it to stop an attacker from killing him (not this case - just a generalization), he will be charged under TX law? What the heck do you think this provision of law is for??!!?? It isn't so you can take your firearm for a Sunday drive! It allows you to have the gun for any legal reason - as in protecting your life from crazed madmen! If you happen to need to exit your car in your defense, why would that suddenly turn this into an illegal act?

 

[winchester62]

He pushed a woman out of the way, who voluntarily inserted herself into a quarrel between to men.

It doesn't justify battery, which is what this is! Are you trying to justify it? I know "women get annoying" but you might want to have a few more scoops of prozac before you go out in public if you think this was her fault!


And wasn't the marine the one being pulled behind the boat? I may be remembering incorrectly on this point, but if he was the skier, he probably couldn't see the kid in the water. However, if he was reckless and put the kid in danger, I don't have much sympathy for him as he sits in jail. The other guy should have acted more calmly, but if his son was put in danger by recklessness, I understand his hostility.

 

[Cosmoline]

get a good lawyer. Carrying without a permit is a SERIOUS violation no matter where you are.

Not in VT or AK.

Actually, a lot of places let you open carry. Texas is unusually strict about forbidding anyone from carrying in any fashion without a CHL. It's actually not all that gun friendly a state. Up here I have literally walked in front of local cops while openly carrying rifles without anyone batting an eye. It's not that unusual for people to check rifles at the front desk of a store. Heck, I've gone shopping with the thing in my cart because! It's usually in a sock or something but it's as obvious as heck what the thing is. Can't do that in Texas.

 

[imprezagm4]

1) If the person would have had his CHL, and drawn or brandished (not fired), would he have been in trouble at all? You can be killed in a 'simple' fight, and the other guy could have taken his gun. I can see where he would have been in fear of serious bodily harm.

 

[Cosmoline]

The sentences tend to be relatively short (20 months!) but you serve every single day.

I guess it's all a question of perspective. From the victim's point of view in a serious assault, 20 months is surprisingly short. Maybe he had a good lawyer. But from the point of view of the honest citizen we're discussing here, 20 months plus a felony record is pretty much the end of everything. Job, family, and hope. A criminal doesn't care, it's just vacation time. But for someone who screws up and draws too early there's no coming back from that level of punishment. You will never be hired again, never be able to carry again, never own a firearm again, maybe never see your wife and kids again.

Like I said, if this was more than a BS charge that would be taken down a few pegs by the end, and it looks like a high level felony conviction was coming, I'd take the bullet while I still could. Why do you think so many other lawyers, cops, judges and folks who know the system take that option when facing such a charge? Because they know what it means to get a record like that. Unless you're a very wealthy person to start with, a serious violent felony conviction and some hard time is going to be the end of everything for you, even if you don't spend more than a year or two behind bars. Either that or I guess you could take up a life of crime afterwards.

 

[frank23185]

From the OP:
"My friends girlfriend tried to stop the guy by talking to him but the guy pushed her...out of the way."

Battery? Not so much.

All this aside, from my perspective, given what has been presented, I can't see a good case being made for using deadly force.

 

[lesjones]

"All this aside, from my perspective, given what has been presented, I can't see a good case being made for using deadly force."

To be clear, he did not use deadly force. He presented a weapon in response to what he apparently felt was an imminent use of force.

I'd be curious what you think the standard for drawing a gun should be.

 

[yinyangdc]

However, the law frowns upon killing someone to avoid a fist fight.

Oh, my Gosh, someone was killed??!!?? Who?

Oh, oh, oh, I get it. No one was killed. The big BG stopped at the threat of being killed. (Is he a pansy?)
Ok, so the marine avoided a fist fight WITHOUT killing anyone. Whew, what a relief.

Have I successfully matched the previous hyperbole?

 

[Heavy Metal Hero]

This is only one side of the story. I am sure it did not happen exactly this way either. You can all put away your law degrees now.

 

[tnieto2004]

From the OP:
"My friends girlfriend tried to stop the guy by talking to him but the guy pushed her...out of the way."

Battery? Not so much.

You learn something new everyday don't ya!

A battery is the willful or intentional touching of a person against that person’s will by another person, or by an object or substance put in motion by that other person. Please note that an offensive touching can constitute a battery even if it does not cause injury, and could not reasonably be expected to cause injury. A defendant who emphatically pokes the plaintiff in the chest with his index finger to emphasize a point may be culpable for battery (although the damages award that results may well be nominal). A defendant who spits on a plaintiff, even though there is little chance that the spitting will cause any injury other than to the plaintiff's dignity, has committed a battery.


http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/assault_battery.html#3



And yet frank still can't show me a quote where anyone said you should shoot someone for threatening you.. Go figure ..
(In reference to)

To all you guys who think you can shoot someone for threatening to whoop your butt (especially if you precipitated the incident), I wish you good luck.
(Say hello to Bubba for me).

 

[ojibweindian]

If it went to trial, and I was on the jury, I'd guarantee, at the very least, a hung jury.

Can the "PO'd" guy show that the friend acted with malicious intent when the boat went too close to the other guy's boat? Do we know whether or not the guy was actually safely navagating the boat, or was he responsible for putting his boat into a situation in which being "cut off" by the friend was unavoidable by the friend?

How do we know that the guy was practicing responsible boating? Maybe the guy had no reason to be cheesed off in the first place, was a hothead, and to defend his "pride and honor" decided that the friend needed a good ass-kicking?

 

[frank23185]

Get a clue, dude, your entire post is about a guy who was going to shoot a guy who threatened to beat his ass.

If the girlfriend wouldn't have got in the "madman's" face, she wouldn't have got pushed out of the way.


"Do we know whether or not the child actually was responisible for being too close to the boat? How old is the child, anyway?"
LOL!!!