mead-station-bar-and-grill-courtesy-denverpost-com

“It happened at the Mead St. Station Bar and Grill on West 32nd Avenue near Lowell Boulevard in the West Highlands neighborhood,” thedenverchannel.com reports. “Paul Burke, the owner of the restaurant, said that the male victim is a regular and was sitting at the bar at the time of that attack. Burke said a bartender saw the suspect walk in and immediately attack the victim from behind . . .

“He honestly thought he was hugging the other customer, and turns out, he had a knife in his hand and cut his throat,” said Burke. “It was terrifying.”

The owner said the attack appeared to be random and not premeditated, but the suspect has been seen in neighborhood bars and restaurants a few times.

Random violent attacks are extremely rare; as are terrorists attacks (for now) and spree killings. But ambush attacks are not. Just like combat soldiers, experienced thugs know that speed, surprise and violence of action is likely to overwhelm their victim, both physically and psychologically.

There are times when an innocent person is ambushed and there’s not a damn thing they can do about it — whether they’re armed or not. Times when the best they can hope for is simply to survive the attack.

By the same token, there are many maybe even most times when an onlooker is present at the time of a violent attack. An armed bystander has the right tool to intervene to save life or, worst case, apprehend or incapacitate the criminal after the attack.

There are some on this site who claim their gun is for them and theirs and . . . that’s it. I don’t pay that much mind.

I reckon many gun carriers are like me. While they don’t want to put their lives on the line for a complete stranger, imperiling themselves and their loved ones, when push comes to shove they won’t stand idly by when innocent life is lost.

The more armed Americans there are in society, the greater the chance that violent attacks will be foiled or prevented — if only by stopping the attacker from striking again.

Recommended For You

27 Responses to Denver Throat Slitting Incident: It Should Have Been a Defensive Gun Use

  1. Sometimes you have to believe in demons (or something) in order to try and thought-rationalize things like this… 🙁

    • No, you just have to live, moment to moment, with the understanding that it’s Societal Agreement that keeps us all from this second by second, and you have to demand greater and overt support of Societal Agreement from those around you and not tolerate inroads to its destruction of any kind, or you will wake, under a tree and, after surviving the night’s elements, have the remainder of your day may start and be consumed by the notion that it may take armed conflict to defend your sleeping place; the accumulation and protection of the days forage and hunt; your desired mate; and resultant offspring.

      As an example, September 11, 2001 happened because it hadn’t before, NOT BECAUSE it couldn’t have happened sooner.

      • Actually the attack on 9-11 was tried on Christmas Day 1994, but it failed. Four flights were hijacked by the Armed Islamic Group (GIA), the militia/armed wing offshoot of Algeria’s Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) with Paris as the target.

        You may recall that in 1991 there was a western brokered and backed election in Algeria. Among the parties contesting it was the FIS, which was told that if it played by the rules, as determined by the election monitors, they would be allowed to contest the election. When it appeared that the FIS was going to take at least a plurality, if not an outright majority in the election and be in position to form the next government, the Algerian authorities, with French backing, vacated the election and its outcomes. Initially the FIS protested to the western powers that had brokered and backed the election. When that got them nowhere, they quickly undertook, regardless of what anyone thinks of the religious group involved, what most have classified as a legitimate just revolution against the Algerian government and military. Their initial targets were governmental and military ones. Unfortunately very quickly spiraled out of control. The GIA ultimately separated itself from the FIS’s control leading to widespread low intensity warfare largely targeted at civilian targets. Things were so bad that the FIS’s leadership – both clerical and non-clerical, as well as other Algerian clerics began to condemn the GIA’s activity and declared it haram (forbidden under Islamic Law/Fiqh) in an attempt to siphon the GIA’s legitimacy and support.

        By 1994 the GIA was out of control. They were attacking mountain villages, other towns and villages, tourists sites, etc. Their biggest operation was hijacking four planes on Christmas Day 2004 and flying them towards Paris. It was unclear at the time, and I’ve still not seen it ever fully clarified to this day, whether their intent was to fly the planes into each other to rain deadly debris down onto Parisians and others in the capital out and about on Christmas Day or if it was to fly the planes into four specific targets, which I’ve seen referred to as the Champs Elysee, the Cathedral of Notre Dame, the Louvre, and the Presidential Palace. Either way the death toll would have been very, very high and the physical destruction absolutely terrible. French authorities were, however, able to get the GIA hijackers on the radio and with consultation/help from Professor Paul Wilkinson (my boss/academic supervisor at the time) from the Center for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence, Department of International Studies, University of St. Andrews, as well as other subject matter experts, were able to talk the hijackers into allowing the planes to land.

        This was the template for 9-11, and Kahlid Sheikh Muhammed’s intermediate plan to hijack 11 planes in the mid to late 90s, including the Pope’s airplane. The saving grace, so to speak, on Christmas Day 1994 was that the GIA hijacked the planes, but did so by holding the passengers hostage and using the threat of violence to control the pilots. They were not flying the planes. This allowed the pilots to stay on the radio and for the French authorities and those they were consulting to effect the outcome in a positive way.

        • And, had it happened before, it would likely have been less successful. ?

          I’m sticking with my answer.

          Any mf, alone or in concert could have taken over a plane and done whatever, if the passengers are trained (if not instructed) to comply with the hijacker’s demands and no one will get hurt.

          Any other day, instead it was a bright sunny Tuesday, that pretty much changed my life permanently. If you knew better back when, thanks for keeping a secret better than our former Secretary of State.

          I think I vaguely remember the incidents that you cite, but that it (the threats of “crashing” the plane) was an ‘after-the-fact’ threat that was never acted upon, the initial threat was to blow the plane in mid-air. That threat being considered (by the POS terrorists) to be guaranteed to be countered with some global thermonuclear methyl-ethyl bad sh_t on i-slammies. Too bad, we could’ve saved some people I went to High School with by burying the Murhadists’ sh_t deeper than humans can possibly frack (a few miles above areas of Earth’s Mantle that move during earthquakes).

          Thanks for playing.

  2. We can’t claim to be “sheepdogs” of our community while at the same time saying “me and mine only”. At best, it’s bad PR.

    If we claim our being armed is a benefit to society we must be ready to back that claim up. Defeating gun control is just a small part of the battle. We must also defeat all those laws that put a “good guy with a gun” in peril if he acts as a good guy.

    No lawsuits by the bad guys or their families. Politically motivated DA’s must physically fear the results of their actions if they use the weight of the system against a good guy. Police must be conditioned to look at the armed good guy as one of their own.

    • In CA, at least in any of its urban centers, you have to adopt that mentality or you will go to prison for a very long time and all your possessions will be sold by the throat cutter to pay his lawyers for his defense.

      Its a damn tragedy what CA has done.

      • Here in my state (WA), there are many “pearl clutchers.” I have read several times that a victim, having been protected/saved by a by-stander, have testified AGAINST their savior by saying the they probably didn’t have to shoot/hit/whatever the perp, because (fill in the blank). They will have MONTHS before this comes to trial, and will have plenty of time to re-think their position.

        A couple years ago at the college I attended, a prof posted in a discussion about SJW subject X chimed in stating that he PERJURED himself in a trial concerning someone who stole his motorcycle. After X months to think about it, he didn’t feel that the perp should go to jail for his offense (even with lots of evidence proving guilt) so HE LIED on the stand.

        The perp walked. And the prof is teaching social justice, among other things, at the college.

    • Let’s just not claim to be sheepdogs at all. Sheepdogs’ job is to do the bidding of their master and corral sheep to slaughter. Shepherds are the ultimate protectors of the flock, and are armed thusly. Those sheep are dead one way or another. So really, I’d be great with never seeing the “sheepdog” analogy ever again, because it’s just stupid.

      I carry to protect me and mine. It DOES still provide a net benefit to the community when people carry to protect themselves, because the more who do it, the more would-be criminals are either deterred, or second-guess the wisdom in targeting potential victims.

      Personally, I just try to maintain situational awareness, avoid places and circumstances that carry higher levels of risk when I can, and protect myself to the extent that the law allows. It is up to the justice system to carry out their half of the deal and enforce laws, apprehend criminals, and prosecute them.

      • I don’t function as a sheepdog. And maybe that guy at the bar wasn’t an innocent sheep. Maybe he was a rabid wolf…don’t know…not enough intel. The second amendment doesn’t require any vigilantism. What you do with your gun is your business, just be prepared to answer for it. Unless I am absolutely sure an innocent is experiencing a life threatening assault, I am duty bound to NOT insert my self into it. I have a duty to my wife and family not to jeopardize my life and wealth which would be detrimental to them. Now if I’m on a hijacked plane and I’m going to die anyway well,….”LET’S ROLL”. The great thing about the Second amendment is, each one of us can arm ourselves and not depend on others to do so. Arm up, everyone. Help make this country thug free.

      • Amen! The supposed sheepdog analogy is stupid and worn out. I carry, train and prepare to protect me and mine. I may defend/help someone else, but I don’t expect anyone else to defend or help me.

        • I’m tired of the sheepdog analogy as well.

          How about a Bighorn Ram? They live free, go where they want, protect their ewes and their young, have some sweet horns, and can give a serious head-butting.

          The whole sheepdog analogy assumes that it is perfectly acceptable for people to live like domesticated livestock. I don’t like that view. The Lord is to be our Shepherd (Psalm 23, Jesus is the Good Shepherd, etc.), but we aren’t here to be domesticated by anybody else.

      • That’s a great point about the sheepdog analogy. From the sheep’s point of view, that dog isn’t any more of a hero than the wolf is. He’s just protecting you to make sure you get slaughtered at the right time by the right predator, and maybe he’ll get to chew on your bones afterward as a reward.

    • A “Sheepdog” defends his/her flock. t’s up to the individual to determine who they are willing to be responsible for. OF course each situation is different.

      God post though.

      • I do too. It is time for all the sheep to wise up, toughen up, and protect themselves to some reasonable degree.

  3. You need extreme situational awareness. If that includes always facing out in a bar so be it. I just don’t go to bars…and sometimes shite happens.

  4. Random “A Clockwork Orange” attacks like this where some one or a group are “out for a bit of the old ultra-violence” for no apparent reason are the hardest to deal with at the time they occur and when trying to explain them.


  5. There is a reason to take a seat in the back of the house, with your back against the wall, facing the door. It’s called the “gun-fighters seat for a reason. Think of it as a DEW Line for dining out.

    • Yeah, I was thinking the same thing, but not everyone can always be at that condition. It would be nice if people didn’t have to worry about getting their throat cut because there were no seats available in the back. Wanna bet the killer here has been convicted of a crime before and was let out early?

  6. aside of sitting where you can face every person in any room, not much would have prevented someone walking up behind you with a knife and cutting your throat. Not even the bartender noticed what was happening. This could have happened walking down the street or sitting at a ball game or anywhere and I would be hard pressed to think a firearm would have stopped this unless the guy walked in waving a knife and took their sweet time walking up to the person they were going to attack?

  7. “The more armed Americans there are in society, the greater the chance that violent attacks will be foiled or prevented — if only by stopping the attacker from striking again.”

    Sooner rather than later, the demographics of concealed-carry will reach critical mass and we’ll begin to see more and more attacks being thwarted by gun-armed private citizens. We’re not quite there yet, but the fact that we’re actively thinking and talking about it is a good indication that meaningful change is taking place. But where police are given considerable latitude in armed confrontations, private citizens are not. With increasing numbers of gun-carrying citizens taking place, we need a serious overhaul of our laws. Legally armed private citizens who use guns to protect themselves or others during the commission of a crime should have the same “implied immunity” that is routinely given to police officers.

    • I think we’re already there, actually. Violent crime in the country is at an all-time low. Gun ownership is at an all-time high. I daresay there are more folks who go about their daily business armed, than ever before in the last 50 years. The only reason why we don’t hear more about thwarted attacks and aborted muggings, etc., etc., is because for the media, if it bleeds it leads.

  8. I guess I’m one who carries for me and mine in contrast to the bravado portrayed by RF. The legal repercussions just aren’t worth it for me to interject in others’ altercations. RF might learn that if he attended an Andrew Branca class. Besides, others have the same opportunity to carry a gun as I do.

Leave a Reply

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