Defensive Carry banner

21 - 40 of 58 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,504 Posts
I agree with that, but I think one should practice a high level of restraint, regardless of whether one is carrying. Imagine the story you told, except "A" didn't have the gun. He probably would not have been prosecuted, but he may well have gotten the stuffing beaten out of him.

The rule I'd suggest is: before getting into a confrontation of any kind, consider what you stand to gain by it. In the vast majority of cases, there's nothing to be gained and no reason to engage at all; but (as I said in the other thread) humans are wired to puff out their chests when they don't like what others are doing.
Agree completely. I think a counterpoint to that is that escalations can happen quickly and out of nowhere. Even if you show great restraint, a gesture that seems innocuous to you might set someone off. This could include a polite "toot" of the horn, pulling around someone in traffic legally, but too close for their comfort, etc.

I changed lanes on a four-lane not too long ago, following all the rules: I was paced with the traffic in the other lane, I was lined up with a space that offered plenty of room and I signaled. The driver behind me honked and flipped me off. He may have thought that I was too close, but my move was absolutely no threat to him in any way. If he had gone all road rage, followed me to my destination and came at me with a weapon, I wondered how the legalities might have turned out.

I ride a motorcycle. It is well known that some people take great offense at anything a motorcyclists do that they perceive as out of line, much more so than they would with someone in a car. Some people are just looking for some reason to harass a biker. I don't know why that is, but it is well documented. Also, you don't have much protection against a road rager if you are boxed in at a light. There is no car around you. So if someone comes at you, you pretty much have to take some radical action or you are toast. I am not sure where I am going with that, but I think about it a lot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,504 Posts
I would like to see the trial transcript. Sounds like A did more than just a toot of the horn followed by "C'mon, man, give me a break!" Also, if I pissed off a couple of drunk Russkie weightlifters in a parking lot, I would not go into a bar with them...
Maybe he did more than toot his horn. Maybe he called them fat, drunken Russian arseholes, which technically would have been true. Maybe he flipped them off. No doubt the surviving weightlifter probably claimed as much. The way the case turned out, that is not what's important.

The point is left the scene and went home before the shooting, he still got charged and it went all the way to an uncertain verdict. That to my mind, is cautionary.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,470 Posts
Maybe he did more than toot his horn. Maybe he called them fat, drunken Russian arseholes, which technically would have been true. Maybe he flipped them off. No doubt the surviving weightlifter probably claimed as much. The way the case turned out, that is not what's important.

The point is left the scene and went home before the shooting, he still got charged and it went all the way to an uncertain verdict. That to my mind, is cautionary.
Agreed. There are opposite ends of the spectrum in behavior that could be deemed "aggressive," and it's always best to do as much as you can to avoid escalation. That being said, if someone cuts in front of me at the grocery store check out line, I'll still probably say "Excuse me??!!" Unless they are two drunken Russian weightlifters - then I would just smile.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,318 Posts
If I feel the need to honk my horn, I will honk my horn. If someone desires to take offense at that--it is upon them. The horn, required by law to warn vehicles and pedestrians, is there to be used for that purpose.
And in my state, if your horn is inoperable at your yearly safety inspection, your vehicle will fail. The law requires that your vehicle has a functioning horn.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,318 Posts
There was a case in the Richmond area a few years ago. My daughter and son-in-law, who are local lawyers, knew the defense attorney, the prosecutor and the judge, so they followed the case as I did.

Guy A, who is a CC permit holder, was described as small in stature and who apparently had not been drinking, attempts to pull into a parking lot of a bar, but his passage is blocked by Guys B and C whose car is blocking the entrance while they are chatting with someone. B and C are Russian competitive weightlifters who have been drinking most of the day. Guy A honks his horn. B and C get their backs up and start berating A. A argues with them, but B and C eventually move their car. All three go into the bar. A ignores B and C, but B and C decide to start harassing A in the bar. Guy A leaves and goes home.

Unbeknownst to A, the two weightlifters follow him home to his apartment complex. They see A get on the elevator. One of the weightlifters goes up the stairs. The other takes the next elevator. The weightlifters corner A in the hallway on his floor and come at him in a threatening manner. A draws and shoots them both, killing one and wounding one.

A is charged with second degree murder. The rationale for the prosecution is not excessive force. It is that A was a party to starting the fight by honking his horn and then engaging in the arguments, that both times were started by B and C. The story has a happy ending, with some cautions. The trial by judge went all the way to the verdict, which was not guilty. The judge said the prosecutor should never have pursued the case based on the facts. However, the judge said it turned on the fact that A had left the original scene and "retreated" to his home. If he had engaged with the weightlifters at the original scene, even though they were the aggressors, he could not have claimed self defense because he did contribute to starting the altercation. His "retreat" gave him back his ability to claim self defense.

Of course, this whole thing probably cost Guy A a lot of money and many months of worry about whether or not he was going to prison. Another judge, or a jury, could have seen it differently. We can second guess all we want about carrying into bars, which is legal in VA as long as you don't drink. But the same scenario could have happened a lot of places.

I think the lesson is that you have to show a higher level of restraint if you are carrying because of the possible consequences. The fact that SD is an affirmative defense means essentially that in an SD shooting, you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent.
The law in Virginia regarding retreating from a confrontation in which the victim is part of the problem was partially evident in what you have related here. The part that is missing is that the man did not tell his antagonizers that he did want to fight as he was leaving. If he was in the business and retreated outside while the two aggressors continued to move towards him, he would have to voice his wish not to fight them as he retreated. Once he reached a point where he could no longer retreat safely and/or his aggressors became attackers, he could then use deadly force legally to protect himself. His actions would not be viewed as justifiable but rather as excusable. Yes it is a good thing that the judge viewed the victim’s action of going home as retreating rather than escalating the confrontation.

You can consume alcoholic beverages in a business that sells such for consumption on the premise while armed as long as your sidearm is carried openly, unless you are employed by the Attorney General's office. Then you can do this for both open and concealed carry. (can't say for certain if this is still law).

As for an affirmative defense, what that means is that you freely admit to doing what you did and that under the same set of circumstances, you would do so again. Effectively, you are admitting to a justifiable or excusable homicide. It is the job of the prosecution to prove that you didn't have sufficient reason to use deadly force.

Lastly, there are no bars in Virginia. May seem like a small or strange thing, but it is true.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,890 Posts
I CCW because when I go out in public I take the risk of running across crazy unreasonable people that I am unable to retreat from. That said, I will always retreat whenever possible no matter who is right or wrong. My CCW is only for those very few instances where I am unable to retreat from a deadly threat.

As for the two Russian guys in the bar.......I would have bought them a both a drink and chatted them up. I have been in similar situations and found that checking your ego at the door is usually the best policy. No harm no foul.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
441 Posts
Not necessarily. If the gun is not employed or even introduced, it's not a gunfight. Ain't buyin' this concept.
I think the point being made is that whether you are fighting with the gun or to protect it, as soon as you get involved it is a gunfight.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
441 Posts
There was a case in the Richmond area a few years ago. My daughter and son-in-law, who are local lawyers, knew the defense attorney, the prosecutor and the judge, so they followed the case as I did.

Guy A, who is a CC permit holder, was described as small in stature and who apparently had not been drinking, attempts to pull into a parking lot of a bar, but his passage is blocked by Guys B and C whose car is blocking the entrance while they are chatting with someone. B and C are Russian competitive weightlifters who have been drinking most of the day. Guy A honks his horn. B and C get their backs up and start berating A. A argues with them, but B and C eventually move their car. All three go into the bar. A ignores B and C, but B and C decide to start harassing A in the bar. Guy A leaves and goes home.

Unbeknownst to A, the two weightlifters follow him home to his apartment complex. They see A get on the elevator. One of the weightlifters goes up the stairs. The other takes the next elevator. The weightlifters corner A in the hallway on his floor and come at him in a threatening manner. A draws and shoots them both, killing one and wounding one.

A is charged with second degree murder. The rationale for the prosecution is not excessive force. It is that A was a party to starting the fight by honking his horn and then engaging in the arguments, that both times were started by B and C. The story has a happy ending, with some cautions. The trial by judge went all the way to the verdict, which was not guilty. The judge said the prosecutor should never have pursued the case based on the facts. However, the judge said it turned on the fact that A had left the original scene and "retreated" to his home. If he had engaged with the weightlifters at the original scene, even though they were the aggressors, he could not have claimed self defense because he did contribute to starting the altercation. His "retreat" gave him back his ability to claim self defense.

Of course, this whole thing probably cost Guy A a lot of money and many months of worry about whether or not he was going to prison. Another judge, or a jury, could have seen it differently. We can second guess all we want about carrying into bars, which is legal in VA as long as you don't drink. But the same scenario could have happened a lot of places.

I think the lesson is that you have to show a higher level of restraint if you are carrying because of the possible consequences. The fact that SD is an affirmative defense means essentially that in an SD shooting, you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent.
The prosecutor should have been fired and perhaps even charged for abuse of his office.

Glad the guy got a walk but I sure hope he was well insured with NRA Carry Guard or Law Shield.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
441 Posts
The law in Virginia regarding retreating from a confrontation in which the victim is part of the problem was partially evident in what you have related here. The part that is missing is that the man did not tell his antagonizers that he did want to fight as he was leaving. If he was in the business and retreated outside while the two aggressors continued to move towards him, he would have to voice his wish not to fight them as he retreated. Once he reached a point where he could no longer retreat safely and/or his aggressors became attackers, he could then use deadly force legally to protect himself. His actions would not be viewed as justifiable but rather as excusable. Yes it is a good thing that the judge viewed the victim’s action of going home as retreating rather than escalating the confrontation.

You can consume alcoholic beverages in a business that sells such for consumption on the premise while armed as long as your sidearm is carried openly, unless you are employed by the Attorney General's office. Then you can do this for both open and concealed carry. (can't say for certain if this is still law).

As for an affirmative defense, what that means is that you freely admit to doing what you did and that under the same set of circumstances, you would do so again. Effectively, you are admitting to a justifiable or excusable homicide. It is the job of the prosecution to prove that you didn't have sufficient reason to use deadly force.

Lastly, there are no bars in Virginia. May seem like a small or strange thing, but it is true.
I think in leaving the premises he met the retreat requirements as per the laws of just about every state that still has such an archaic law/set of laws on the books. He did everything he could to quit the scene and avoid a physical confrontation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,318 Posts
I think in leaving the premises he met the retreat requirements as per the laws of just about every state that still has such an archaic law/set of laws on the books. He did everything he could to quit the scene and avoid a physical confrontation.
I agree. It's just that here you have a duty to inform your antagonist that you do not wish to fight while retreating IF you are part of the problem. The case the other gentleman related met that requirement as far as I'm concerned because the victim left the scene before things got out of hand. I would bet that if it had have been a jury trial, the verdict would have been the same.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
441 Posts
I agree. It's just that here you have a duty to inform your antagonist that you do not wish to fight while retreating IF you are part of the problem. The case the other gentleman related met that requirement as far as I'm concerned because the victim left the scene before things got out of hand. I would bet that if it had have been a jury trial, the verdict would have been the same.
I made a point of looking it up and giving the statute a good read and I still believe the DA was absolutely wrong.

Not only did he do everything you can ask of a reasonable person to avoid a physical confrontation, he flat out quit the scene. Above and beyond that the way the statute reads and the case law I found on the subject I can see no way in which it can be determined he was the instigator of the situation.

Blowing your horn to get someone blocking the right of way to move is not a threat nor can it be seen as such by any reasonable person.

It's the vehicular equivalent of sticking your head out the window and saying, "Hey guys can you move so I can get bye?".

It just flat sounds like a clear case of abuse of a law abiding citizen under the color of authority.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
33,892 Posts
I think the point being made is that whether you are fighting with the gun or to protect it, as soon as you get involved it is a gunfight.
That is, IMO, an incorrect point. Honestly, I react to aggressiveness pretty much the same whether I am carrying or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bad Bob

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,380 Posts
He who runs from a fight today (when it is possible), lives to run from a fight another day.

My policy is to avoid confrontation. But, if such confrontation is inescapable, I intend to respond with whatever force is necessary to preserve the life and safety of those of whom I love and care.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,220 Posts
Not necessarily. If the gun is not employed or even introduced, it's not a gunfight. Ain't buyin' this concept.
Situation, a verbal exchange. Problem, when you raised your arms, your weapon was visible. Reaction by idiots, 911 call reporting a man with a gun threatening someone. Gunfight.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
33,892 Posts
He who runs from a fight today (when it is possible), lives to run from a fight another day.

My policy is to avoid confrontation. But, if such confrontation is inescapable, I intend to respond with whatever force is necessary to preserve the life and safety of those of whom I love and care.
My last confrontation, with three strapping lads in Puerto Rico, would have doubtlessly have unfavorably for my wife and me had I chosen the run away option. It is sometimes better to turn and face the strange...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,380 Posts
My last confrontation, with three strapping lads in Puerto Rico, would have doubtlessly have unfavorably for my wife and me had I chosen the run away option. It is sometimes better to turn and face the strange...
Hence my qualifier: when it is possible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,318 Posts
I made a point of looking it up and giving the statute a good read and I still believe the DA was absolutely wrong.

Not only did he do everything you can ask of a reasonable person to avoid a physical confrontation, he flat out quit the scene. Above and beyond that the way the statute reads and the case law I found on the subject I can see no way in which it can be determined he was the instigator of the situation.

Blowing your horn to get someone blocking the right of way to move is not a threat nor can it be seen as such by any reasonable person.

It's the vehicular equivalent of sticking your head out the window and saying, "Hey guys can you move so I can get bye?".

It just flat sounds like a clear case of abuse of a law abiding citizen under the color of authority.
Yes sir, I couldn't agree more with this. Your analogy is spot on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,318 Posts
My last confrontation, with three strapping lads in Puerto Rico, would have doubtlessly have unfavorably for my wife and me had I chosen the run away option. It is sometimes better to turn and face the strange...
Unfortunately for me, my options in such a situation as this are somewhat limited. With two knee replacements (one partial and one total) and two fused vertebrae, my ability to fight, as I was once capable of doing, has been seriously reduced. On the fortunate side, this does not appear to be the case in my carriage and gate as these surgeries were completely successful. But still, I cannot use my martial arts training anywhere near the degree I could in my younger years. So demeanor, SA, improvising, and surprise, when lacking my sidearm, would be my best avenue of defense.... when escape is not an option.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
257 Posts
Simple as I teach my MA students, nobody is worth it unless after you have avoided, escaped, now must defend self!... If carrying, be a unseen mouse, no one is worth it!!!!!!.....on the other hand, be an unseen mouse anyway even if not carrying!!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,891 Posts
I'll use my horn when I need to for safety reasons. In some cases, you are required to do so in NC in certain situations (passing another vehicle, avoiding pedestrians).
 
21 - 40 of 58 Posts
Top