By Brandon via concealednation.org

In an unprovoked and disgusting attack, a suspect brutally punched and kicked an 83-year-old man simply because he was walking past him. The victim, identified as Tuyen Nguyen, was going about his morning routine of grabbing a cup of coffee and a newspaper . . .

Footage released by authorities shows Nguyen walking unassumingly when he is suddenly approached by another man, who punches him in the face.

In an attack that police detectives described as “without provocation,” Nguyen then falls to the ground and is apparently punched at least two more times before being kicked by the assailant.

Nguyen was taken to the hospital with broken bones in his face, as well as a brain hemorrhage. “He’s in a lot of pain right now, physically,” his daughter, Julie Nguyen said. “And for us it’s a mental anguish, mental pain. It’s a lot.”

In California, it’s next to impossible to obtain a permit to carry a firearm. So, it’s up to the police to be at the right place at the right time, and that’s just not reality. Had someone been in the area –say an armed citizen– the brutal assault may have been stopped.

Speculation, I know. But this is the alternative. I side with people being armed.

Investigators described the attacker as black, about 40 to 50 years old, 5 feet 10 inches tall, weighing 160 pounds, unshaven and wearing a gray long-sleeve shirt or black sweater.

Anyone with information was asked to contact Detective Cpl. Leo Rodriquez of the Santa Ana Police Department at 714-493-9135 or Orange County Crime Stoppers at 855-TIP-OCCS.

80 Responses to It Should Have Been a Defensive Gun Use: 83-Year-Old Sucker Punched [VIDEO]

    • Perhaps not directly, but if a large percentage of the citizen of that state were know to be concealed carrying then the chances of this kind of thing happening would decrease. When attacking your fellow citizen becomes a game “russian roulette” then some thugs will stop playing because they don’t like the odds and some will start losing that game when they do play.

    • Directly? Probably not. That first punch was a knockdown, nearly knockout, blow. The die was cast at that point.

      Still, the value of carrying a self-defense firearm extends beyond and before its actual use. It helps establish and reinforce a mindset conducive to awareness, avoidance and de-escalation. How one carries oneself and into what situations one ventures, go a long way toward limiting the array of dies which even can be cast.

      • Directly? Probably not. That first punch was a knockdown, nearly knockout, blow. The die was cast at that point.

        Exactly. This has all the makings of the allegedly non-existent Knockout Game attack. When I lived in St. Louis, elderly Asians were a popular target – and one man was killed in an attack just like this one.

        • I see the reasoning here on both sides; but how, Jonathan, do you sell the idea of reinforcing a mindset of situational awareness?

          “Look, Mrs. Smith. If a thug targets you for a knock-out “game” attack you probably won’t have enough opportunity to pull your gun. Nevertheless, if you are carrying a 2-lbs weight on your hip it will serve to remind to to maintain situational awareness.”

          I don’t think that’s an argument that motivates her to think about it in a sustained way. How about this alternative:

          “Look, Mrs. Smith. If a thug targets you for a knock-out “game” attack you probably won’t have enough opportunity to pull your gun. Nevertheless, if someone ELSE walking down the same street at the time is carrying a gun on HIS hip he MIGHT be able to intervene and stop the beating after the first or second blow. That intervention could make the difference between life or death for the victim. Should such interventions become commonplace, it would discourage thugs from playing this destructive violent and pointless “game”.

          My thought is that it is premature and ineffective to try to induce our Mrs. Smith to think about carrying a gun herself for her own protection. Too much for her to accept in one step down a train-of-thought.

          Instead, it might be tactically more effective to plant the thought that someone ELSE – not necessarily HER – might be able to intervene in some attacks on victims IN GENERAL; it need not be HER that has been attacked. Any other (sympathetic) victim will serve as the object of her empathy. The intervention need not be that the gun-carrier shoots the attacker; he might simply draw his gun and order the attacker to stop. He might succeed in holding the attacker at gun-point until the police arrive.

          I think that our best tactic (in promoting the RKBA) is to remind our neighbors:
          – this kind of shit happens, and it seems to be a growing problem.
          – innocent people are getting killed or injured.
          – the cops can’t really prevent it or stop it and the perps won’t be dissuaded by a 30-day jail term.
          – if our fellow citizens can’t carry weapons that would empower them to intervene then knock-out will get out-of-hand.

          I.e., there IS SOCIAL-UTILITY in SOMEONE carrying guns, not necessarily you yourself nor necessarily because you might get attacked.

          You see, Mrs. Smith lives with the illusion that it “can’t happen to me”. Not easy to break-through that illusion because its self-protective.

          Yet, Mrs. Smith is willing to recognize that “it could happen to someone else” in the universe. In fact, she knows it DOES happen to someone else. To victims worthy of her empathy. Do those victims deserve the benefit of a possible defense-of-self or as the beneficiary of a defense-of-other?

          And, of course, Mrs. Smith can’t imagine herself pulling a gun and intervening. After all, she wouldn’t do so if she were on the scene; moreover, she doesn’t transit places at times where any such violence might occur. Yet, she might be able to imagine someone else passing by who – if only HE were armed – MIGHT choose to intervene.

          Does this rhetorical tactic make any sense? If so, then is it generally applicable? E.g., every time we have an opportunity to mention a recent news story about a rape, robbery or assault, should we take the tack that “if only a citizen passer-by had a concealed gun; he might have been able to intervene”.

          If this is a worth-while tactic, then it follows that we ought to reconsider the rhetoric we use when speaking about defense-of-other.

          A few PotG claim flat-out that they would under no circumstances intervene in-defense-of-other who is not a loved one. OK, so, Mrs. Smith (should she read TTAG or a quote on the Mom’s web-site from such a PotG) wonders: “What’s in it for me or any other sympathetic victim if these gun-carriers wouldn’t even consider intervening in-defense-of-other?”

          Would it be more rhetorically tactical if PotG were to explain why it’s especially important to be circumspect in cases of defense-of-other?

    • There are 2 valid answers to this problem.
      1. – the victim of a sucker-punch is almost certain to be unable to defend himself (assuming he could avoid the approach of a suspicious person).
      2. – a bystander COULD use lethal force to arrest the perpetrator.

      The defense-of-other is tricky; however, it is apt to be workable with just a little cooperation from prosecutors and juries.

      There are 2 variations to consider.
      1. – the single punch; vs
      2. – multiple punches.

      If anyone were to fire at a perpetrator of a single punch the defender would be very vulnerable to a prosecutor pursuing him for acting vindictively. Under self-defense law, to act vindictively is not given much sympathy. E.g., a woman can shoot a rapist before or during but NOT AFTER the rape has been completed and the rapist has retreated.

      Conversely, if the perpetrator punches the victim a second time the defender has no reasonable basis to know when the beating is going to stop. If the victim appears to be a sympathetic character (child, elderly person, woman) then the benefit of the doubt is apt to be extended to the defender.

      The plausible threat of force to arrest the perpetrator should serve as an effective deterrent. For the threat to be plausible there have to be a reasonably large number of perpetrators who wind up getting shot. For that to happen, prosecutors, judges and juries have to decide whether they want sucker-punching of children, the elderly and women to stop or expand.

      Today, its reasonably clear, that prosecutors and judges are too enamored of their own power to care about victims of sucker-punches. They will persecute – consistently enough – to dissuade concealed carriers from intervening. And so, this crime will escalate in frequency.

      There is no credible deterrent. Cops can’t be everywhere. Surveillance cameras could be everywhere; but society will not tolerate that proposition. Perpetrators simply need to choose venues where they can complete their attacks without being recorded and with little risk of getting caught. Rarely will they ever be caught and when caught, rarely will they be punished severely enough to serve as an effective deterrent. Sucker-punching is – effectively – a PERFECT crime of PROTEST against society; so long as society chooses to tolerate this form of “protest”. That’s where we are today.

      A modest number of dead “yoots”; thousands of wounded yoots who are arrested and prosecuted should end the popularity of this crime. But, that’s not likely in today’s society. Political Correctness rules the day. Hundreds of injured or murdered elderly victims don’t count.

    • “I don’t think a gun would have done him much good to be honest.”

      Agreed. The old man was the victim of a vicious sucker punch from someone he’d talked to previously. He didn’t stand a chance.

    • NJ it is impossible unless your an ex cop. period. veterans need not apply. dont care if your life is endanger, or you survived multiple attempts. your not worthy in NJ.

      but they issue 200 a year to ex cops aka civilians to comply with federal/constitutional guidelines.

  1. A gun may not have helped him, but another armed citizen may have been able to stop it after the first punch. Still just speculation… These attacks might stop if the animals are shot on a consistent basis

  2. Did he rob the victim, was the perpetrator’s description possibly off, or are middle aged black dudes playing the ‘knockout game’ now?

    Come on guys, if you convince the white, Jewish, Hispanic and Asian people that black lives don’t matter, it’s not going to end well.

  3. A big dog might be a good thing for such a fellow to have if he is going to go out and about in places and times like that. The dog might give him a chance to get a gun into play.

  4. Okay, where’s the usual comments about he should have got more training, exercised, eaten a better diet and learned Krav Maga?

    The one thing we do know, in most cases, is that people who carry, open or concealed, regardless of their level of training in ANY other discipline, tend to have better situational awareness. That is the only thing that might have given this man a chance to avoid or to respond in time to this attack.

    Point two – in any community/society where a statistically significant portion of the population MIGHT be carrying a concealed weapon attacks of this nature tend to fall off precipitously. Just sayin’.

  5. Yep. The “knock out game”.

    Colin Flaherty’s book “White Girl Bleed Alot, The return of racial violence and how the media ignore it” documents the nation wide unprovoked attacks by blacks on the primarily white and asian population.

    • I dunno. The attacker sounds like a mental case to me. I suspect that non-crazy people don’t play the knock out game with people they know and who can identify them.

      • You’re probably right. In my defense, It is kind of hard to differentiate between the many dozens if not hundteds of the attacks a year in cities all over the country by supposed sane blacks on random white and black people vesus this lone attack by a crazy homeless black person on an old Asian man.

        At least the crazy homeless man could have the excuse he was crazy.

        • Darn, I was working and couldn’t do all of my editing before I ran out of time.

          “supposed sane blacks on random white and (black) asian people”

      • “I dunno. The attacker sounds like a mental case to me.”

        Sorry, but I couldn’t disagree more. Assigning his behavior to be the result of mental illness ignores the fact that the law rarely, if ever, excuses an unprovoked attack like that to a claim of mental illness. Even mentally ill people are still held responsible for such acts because they still know right from wrong. Those who don’t know right from wrong and who commit violent acts like this are a vanishingly small percentage of genuinely mentally ill people. This scumbag did this because he **wanted** to hurt that old man.

    • The violence and duration of the attack does not seem to fit the profile of most of the “knock out game” I’ve seen videos of. I’ve heard of Mr Flaherty’s book but I have not read it.

    • A gun in this situation? The old man was obviously in condition white.

      I’ve been in similar situations. A predator intent on doing harm or preparing for an attack gives off body cues that are obvious, if you’re looking for them.

      But you need to be looking for them, and prepare accordingly. Once I show that I was aware of the predator and his approach, and show that I am also giving the body cues that I am also prepared for a defense, invariably, the predator has chosen to choose another target. All without needing to draw a weapon.

      After all, the predator does look for the helpless, the weak and the unaware.

    • Isn’t part of the knock-out game to have it video taped by a friend? I think the guy was a nut job, not a knock-out game participant. Either way, hope they find him and get him off the streets.

  6. Santa Ana is about a dozen miles from my house in Brea, CA. It’s in Orange County, which is relatively Republican. You can get a CCW permit in “the OC” from the OCSO if you complete the state-mandated background check, training course, and interview. The process is cumbersome (it’s designed to be!), but not the same as LA. In LA, you cannot get a CCW permit unless you donate large sums of money, are a judge, or otherwise politically connected.

    I have more than a dozen non-LEO friends who have CCW’s, and I’m trying to get my wife to go through the process.

    I’ll be looking for this A-hole. If I would have been there things would have turned out a lot differently.

      • Accur81’s a good man and, in my several years reading of him, a good officer. Let’s not give in to a mob mentality and go around encouraging him or others to dish out rough rides and curbside justice.

        This attacker obviously isn’t in complete control of his own faculties, not unlike a rabid dog. While that ultimately will entail society having to secure him or put him down one way or another, extrajudicial savagery on the side of the road isn’t a serious solution.

        • Here, here. There are those rare times when one might understand a mild ‘tune-up’ or an ‘attitude adjustment’. But cops exist to arrest people, not to be meting out street justice. We’ve seen how proficient they are at that with say, Dorner….

        • It used to be you’d hit their head on the opening of the car when you shoved them in back. But enough people complained that now you put your hand on their head so they don’t.

          I think we should do away with most jails. Just bring back the stocks. And whipping. Or caning. After all, we train unruly dogs with pain…

    • “I’ll be looking for this A-hole. If I would have been there things would have turned out a lot differently.”

      Here’s hoping you find him. Somehow I have a feeling he’s not smart enough to travel very far. I think he did this so he could brag to his homies. He may well do something like this again.

  7. The state of California hates old people – that is why they deny them any ability to defend themselves. The liberal residents of California are rejoicing that a thug survived without “gun violence” occurring. Because “gun violence” or the absence thereof is more important than justice or the protection of the innocent.

  8. I generally find the armchair quarterback-ing of self defense scenarios to be irritating, but this situation in particular gets my goat a bit. I know it is natural to dissect situations like this, but a few things need to be considered IMHO.

    1. The man is 83.

    2. It is a sucker punch.

    Any 83 year old does not have the mental acuity they had when they were 40, or even 50 years old.

    I can hear it now, “My gran’daddy was a snake eater at Normandy and still shoots IPSC Great-Great Grand Master and spars twice a week with Rodger Mayweather!”

    Mental acuity and reaction time degrade over time, it’s part of the aging process. So saying he was in “condition white” makes no sense to me. The reaction time difference between that man and his attacker was huge. Situational awareness may not have been a factor.

    I also think a few more people here could use a decent hand to hand ass kicking. If you’ve never been sucker punched, (or punched at all frankly) your ability to discuss the topic is suspect to me. Sorry that I’m not sorry. No number of you tube martial arts videos will give you that experience.

    Yes, plenty of would-be aggressors give off subtle clues as to their intentions. Yes, situational awareness is very important.

    What the average PoG is not, is someone who has had years of training in deception in the streets. There are people capable of deceiving you enough to get into your personal space and deliver blows before you even realize you’re in a fight.

    There’s nothing you can do about it sometimes but react. Your ability to react will be directly proportional to your level of consciousness at the time.

    If you’re KO’d (which the man above may well have been) you’re at the mercy of your assailant.

    Uniformed officers are shot with their own weapons every year by unarmed suspects in the process of arrest or interrogation. They weren’t all in condition white when it happened.

    If you think it can’t happen to you, all I have to say is; good luck out there.

    • I learned that lesson in the 7th grade. A girl sucker punched me completely out of the blue. It was all I could do to keep my head from bouncing on the stone floor. That sort of thing sticks with you.

    • This. A whole lot of advice from people who haven’t been in a fight. Let me know the next time you see an 83 year old with atrophied muscles in an MMA class, or how situational awareness stops an opponent who is younger and faster. SA is defensive measure. While it’s obviously important, it doesn’t win fights. Actual fights are won by firepower, punching power, control holds, strength and violence of action and sometimes just plain old luck.

      I might also add that I’m not so big on the “my guns are just there to defend me and my own” attitude. If I saw this old man in dire straits, I’d act immediately and decisively.

      • Accur81 wrote:
        “I might also add that I’m not so big on the “my guns are just there to defend me and my own” attitude.”

        Same here. There are some good reasons not too, but, i can’t swallow that pill.

      • “Actual fights are won by firepower, punching power, control holds, strength and violence of action and sometimes just plain old luck.”

        Exactly. One night my wife and I were walking to our car after a concert. Downtown was completely deserted, not a soul around. As walked we passed close by an intersection where once on a similar evening, I was almost car-jacked by a couple of street thugs. I’m a lot older now, don’t move very fast due to a bad leg and, as we slowly walked along, I realized what tempting targets we’d make to guys like that. If you’re older carrying a gun doesn’t guarantee a win but it does even the odds a bit and that’s good enough for me. That was the night I decided to gun-up.

    • I’m with you.He’s even old enough to be MY dad. Old Vietnamese guy had no chance-he probably thought he was fine coming to America too. And good luck finding this scum of the earth Accur81-40to50years old has probably had his azz kicked in his misbegotten life(most likely in prison where he belongs).

    • You make some strong points, especially about the reality of most people not having been hit, at all or lately. The fact is, most men do not know how to fight today. That said, a man is still a man and getting hit in the face even by an amateur can staggering. The blow itself can bring a massive impact. The concurrent thought of being a full grown adult and suddenly being in a fistfight, typically the thing of middle school playgrounds, is nearly as jarring and disorienting as the punch.

      I’d tend to agree, that if one were twenty-five+ years younger and maybe two+ feet shorter the last time you took a punch, then these matters of hand-to-hand street combat may well be too far outside one’s experience to comment upon intelligently.

      My only real recommendation here would be to avoid street people. Don’t engage them in conversation. Don’t befriend them. Don’t pause to assist them directly. They’re living outside societal bounds physically, mentally, and emotionally, and all that that implies. They don’t reckon crime and punishment, rewards and retributions, actions and consequences, in quite the same way as the rest of us. They’re more apt to sucker punch you and rob you, than to sit down with you over tea, as in the movies, and discuss with you the finer points of representative democracy.

      • “My only real recommendation here would be to avoid street people. Don’t engage them in conversation. Don’t befriend them. “

        Craig Douglas’ “Managing Unknown Contacts” classes look interesting.

        It’s one of the few professional training classes geared MORE toward ‘avoidance’ than merely shooting drills, tactics, speed reloads, etc.

        Pretty sure it involves some force-on-force training, too…a plus.

    • I can hear it now, “My gran’daddy was a snake eater at Normandy and still shoots IPSC Great-Great Grand Master and spars twice a week with Rodger Mayweather!”

      Love it. But yeah, if you’re motivated one can sneak up on soldiers on active patrol. Anyone who thinks they have the magic eye and nobody could ever get the drop on them is just delusional. And has either never been in a fight, or got lucky and is making some really dangerous assumptions about that luck continuing.

  9. Here is an update.

    Suspect Who Attacked And Beat 83-Year-Old Grandfather In Santa Ana Behind Bars
    http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/

    SANTA ANA (CBSLA.com) — Police in Santa Ana say the suspect wanted for beating an 83-year-old grandfather in an unprovoked attack is behind bars.

    Police credit tips from the public in helping them nab 29=year-old Demarrea Chante Barnes, described as a transient.

    He was arrested in Anaheim, authorities said. Barnes was booked on assault with a deadly weapon (other than firearm) and assault causing great bodily injury.

  10. “Had someone been in the area –say an armed citizen– the brutal assault may have been stopped.”

    Might, not may; or is there a chance that it was in fact stopped?

    That said, arms be damned; I’ve stopped stuff like that before without a gun. Of course, an armed citizen is better equipped to act as a “well-regulated militia of one.”

    Also, I doubt that had Mr. Nguyen had a gun he’d have had an opportunity to use it, although in Kimbrough other scenarios it’d likely come in handy.

    He certainly deserves to gave the option.

  11. Unfortunately people busted for selling leaves or powder often stay in jail longer than this guy will once he’s caught. The prison-industrial-complex needs criminals on the streets so that people remain scared and willing to “pay their taxes” and fund the obscene pensions the police get.

    • Not since prop 47 went into effect. I’m pretty libertarian when it comes to drugs, except meth and PCP. I’ve been in three use of force incidents this year with meth addicts coming down. One was on a freeway divider, another making trouble at s DMV, and one was accosting women at a car wash. I don’t have any use for meth or PCP.

      I’ve never had issues with Mary-J except DUI and shootings at dispensaries.

      Regardless, alcohol is the most abused drug the US.

      • Coming down off meth was my first thought when I saw the video after reading the report.

        Meth physically alters the brain. When it’s taken away, that absence can leave a flood of anger sufficient that people will take it out on someone who just happens to be there and did nothing to provoke anything. A kid I’ve been trying to help straighten his life out took a swing at me this summer for no reason at all — being in a state of anxiety at the time due to my own brain malfunction, I deflected it without even thinking and sidestepped. His next swing hit the car door edge and pain brought him back to reality.

        So I’m waiting to hear if drugs were involved, one way or another.

  12. Why the emphasis on “unprovoked?” It would have been every bit as disgusting had the old man given a dirty look at and thrown a verbal, even racist insult at the guy.

  13. Wanna bet the guy who did this is vehemently opposed to gun ownership?

    People opposed to gun ownership are so because it means they can get away with what they do. Anti-gunners are the most violent, sick people on Earth.

    • Correction “Demario”.
      A transient, per the CBS update, and homeless been hanging around the strip mall per the original news report.
      Probably mentally ill, probably known to the local cops, who cant do much with him, except pick him up and drop him at the emergency room on a 72 hour hold, who can at best give him meds to stop the voices in his head, that he will sell for drugs or food, or simply throw away when he is released and goes back to living under an overpass.

      So, who’s to blame here- Sacramento- remember Assywymn Nancy Skinner, now retired, who pretended her post Isla Harbor shooter legislation on the GVRO was first about mental health training for the cops, and funding for facilities.

      Have we seen any progress on that effort- that would help messed up human beings like Demario- or instead are Sacramento legislators grandstanding for yet another dumb law to restrict the law abiding, or another worthless public proclamation for climate saving, or yet another sanctuary city inititative to bring in more democratic voters…

      all the while running from doing their jobs on balancing budgets, or solving difficult issues like reducing regulations driving businesses and jobs out of state.

      Expect to see more crazy Demario’s beating up old people and more multiple felon illegal immigrants Jose’s shooting innocent civilians in a crowd, after his 20th release from protard sanctuary city custody instead of deportation to his narco-gang infested country of origin.

      Meanwhile, in their gated communities, the Ruling Party of CA- including the Judges of the 9th CA, the Legislators of Sacramento, the Executive Power Abusers like Kamala Harris and her uber-rich left-limo-liberal set in San Fran and LA are angling for her to take over Box-a-Rox Senate Seat, and export more of the same to the national culture.

      Time to leave KKKali, I am afraid. I’ll be as old and frail as this gentleman before I have the legal right to carry, at the rate politics are going here.

  14. I get so sick of “situational awareness” comments. Thank you captain obvious. The elderly gentleman was carrying groceries. If he was situationally aware he would have noticed the young man, he probably did, but what the hell is he going to do about it.

  15. I’m 22 years old now and not even I would have seen that sucker punch coming at that speed and distance and I maintain situational awareness.. You’d have to be EXTREMELY on guard, a.k.a openly engaged in the confrontation, to have even the slightest chance to avoid this.

    Having a gun or knife would do close to nothing in this instance:
    1) you’ll be so disoriented by the first hit you won’t even know what hit you
    2) pulling my weapons out, and having the consciousness to do so, would be difficult in this situation
    3) what magical fairy land do we live in where we think this could have been a defensive gun use? I don’t train to respond to being disoriented while on the ground and having to draw my weapons as I’m being beaten as I’m sure MOST people aren’t so what the heck TTAG?

    Don’t give me that candy @$$ response where “you should train for it.” What else should I add to the list? Zombie invasion? Shooting a man trying to run me over in a car? It’s such an unlikely occurrence that most gun owners just don’t dedicate their time to prepare for.

    • Hear, hear!

      The only way most of us would have the time to do all the training people here recommend would be to go on government assistance so we could spend all day training.

  16. It’s obvious to me that the attacker is mentally ill. California lets them run rampant, as it costs too much to house and treat them. Isn’t it sad that the safety of the public is predicated on a cost/benefit analysis? This nation doesn’t need gun control, it needs crazy control.

    • The argument to take here is to raise one concern vis a vis the other concern:

      1 – There is the right to self-defense against criminals and crazies; and,
      2 – There is a right of liberty for the mentally ill and criminals who have completed their sentences.

      Does one concern absolutely trump the other? How do we reach a conclusion that concern for:
      – the liberty of the mentally ill absolutely trumps the right of self-defense?
      – the liberty of criminals absolutely trumps the right of self-defense?

      If society – acting by simple majority – decides that almost all the mentally ill and most criminals will remain at liberty how can it simultaneously insist on repudiating the enumerated right to keep and bear arms for the core purpose of self-defense?

      The latter “shall not be infringed” unless-and-until that enumerated right is altered by Constitutional Amendment. And yet, it is absolutely denied in 10 of the 50 States. Is this denial of an enumerated right reconcilable with constitutionalism? Is it even rationally consistent with a policy of keeping crazies and criminals at large?

      • I saw a pilot project for the mentally ill back when I was in college. It began as a drop-in center with multiple TVs, video games, ping-pong, pool tables, a substantial library (of beat-up donated books), jigsaw puzzles, checkers etc., and plenty of very comfy chairs to just chill in. There was tea and coffee all day, plus cocoa on cold mornings and evenings. Two staff were on hand at all times, one a trained social worker, the other a psych doc (a dozen or more rotated through) or psych student. Just that part cut the interaction between cops and mentally ill drastically, because for most of the day the mentally ill had a place to hang out.

        Then they acquired the old hotel the drop-in center had half the first floor of, and using grant money provided VERY cheap housing to mentally ill homeless — some of it free, in bunk rooms patterned after the “sleeping porch” model of the university’s Greek and co-op houses. That eliminated almost all the rest of police interaction with the mentally ill.

        It came to an end when some ass-brain lawyer decided to sue because the mentally ill were receiving “preferential treatment” over other homeless for housing. Ironic: an idealistic liberal lawyer killed a very liberal enterprise that was doing substantial good.

        Anyway, that’s a model that wouldn’t be all that expensive;many, if not most, of the mentally ill on the streets would be perfectly content to live an hang out in such a facility, and the saved cost on the legal system would probably pay for it.

        • Makes a lot of sense.

          I think we conservatives and libertarians ought to really consider getting out-ahead of the Progressives on issues usually thought of social welfare.

          Conservatives too easily take a knee-jerk reaction that one or another social welfare program ought to be defunded. E.g., free mental health. Is this the only way to look at the issue? Or, is there an alternative way of looking at the issue? Perhaps such shelters as you describe could equally be looked at as public safety. We have no objection to hiring a cop or prison guard. Why not hire the couple of people to manage such a shelter? Sift through the mentally ill. Some of them need to be locked up in an asylum. Might be easier to identify these few in the shelter before they kill or injure someone; or, kill or injure themselves. Others might be able to return to the tax rolls if they get the right treatment. And, plenty may be content to hang-out at the shelter rather than becoming a scourge on public safety and aesthetics.

          Yet, because we will not advance any constructive proposal (only defunding) the Progressives remain in charge.

  17. A number of comments need rebuttal. First, in most areas of the country, disparity of force is a huge factor in determining a claim of self-defense. If a 300lb walking refrigerator attacks a 140lb, frail individual, a person of reasonable intelligence can easily surmise that the smaller person has a legit reason to fear for their lives. In most jurisdictions, it is unlikely that a jury will choose to convict. It does not mean you won’t get arrested and charged, though. Second, you shoot to stop the threat, not to maim, kill, punish, etc. If the bad guy sucker punches you, and then runs away or whatever so that he/she is no longer a threat, you cannot shoot. The key is to stop the threat. Third, in most jurisdictions, you have the right to stop a threat to someone else, but it is strongly advised that you are absolutely sure that you are interpreting the situation correctly. For example, you come around the corner, and you see someone with a gun pointed at another. Do you shoot? What if you stumbled on an officer making an arrest, or another conceal carrier subduing a bad guy. Again, in most states, you can stop a threat against another person, but make sure you understand what is going on.

  18. This guy doesn’t deserve to be a member of the human race and surely certainly not of USA society. He deserves to be executed and unmercifully at that. I don’t give two funkadelics about his mental illness, his crack addiction, or his bad childhood without an education or fair opportunities to be rich etc. He needs to be executed. And that poor man’s family, the victim I mean now, maybe they should be compensated for this crime like in Australia etc. What did this 84 whatever year old man do to deserve that? And the thing is, say there was a man out of camera frame with a gun, and he shot and killed the bad guy, to protect and save the victim from further beating. THAT MAN would be on trial now, called a racist POS garbage gun nut vigilante et al and be persecuted as much as possible like Angela Corey or whatever her name was did to GZ, so even if he is found not guilty, we (the gov’t persecutors) have cost him as much as possible and ruined his life.

    My Dad is not quite that old but he just turned 65, officially a Senior Citizen. THAT COULD BE HIM, or any of our parents. that makes me sick.

    • The only legitimate execution is at the hands of the victim or the victim’s defender — not the state. The state can never rise to a moral level such that it has authority to take the life of its citizens.

      That said, exile would be perfectly legitimate. Doesn’t the U.S. own some islands we could dump such people on?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *