“[Conservative radio talk show host Michael] Savage had just finished dining at Servino Ristorante on Main Street in Tiburon when a man, whom he did not know, approached him in the parking lot around 8 p.m. Tuesday,” sfgate.com reports.
The man, believed to be about 50 years old and over 6 feet tall, began yelling at Savage, calling him “weenie” and “Weiner,” an apparent reference to Savage’s legal last name, Weiner, [Savage’s lawyer Daniel] Horowitz said . . .
Savage, holding onto his toy poodle, Teddy, and a to-go bag, told the man to “get lost,” Horowitz said.
The man then pushed Savage to the ground, and when a bystander tried to intervene, the man punched him in the face, Horowitz said.
And then [via mercurynews.com]:
Both men involved in the fight claimed the other started it, according to an incident log. Spokeswoman Laurie Nilsen said the two men placed each other under citizen’s arrest and were released at the scene. A follow-up police report will be sent to the District Attorney’s Office for review to see if any charges will be filed.
As you’d expect, Savage used the incident to savage his political opponents. “It is clearly open season on prominent Trump supporters,” he declared to breitbart.com.
Yes, well, for our purposes the question here is whether or not Mr. Savage would have been well advised to defend himself by force of arms.
As Tiburon is adjacent to San Francisco, we know one thing for certain: if Mr. Savage had brandished a firearm, the SFPD would not have looked upon his armed self-defense favorably. If he’d shot the guy . . .
That’s assuming that Mr. Savage doesn’t live in The City By The Bay. ‘Cause if he does, there’s no way on God’s foggy earth the talkshow host would have been “granted” a government permission slip to carry a firearm.
Anyway, the same old rule applies: you can use deadly force when faced with an imminent, credible threat of death or grievous bodily harm.
As the perp punched a passerby, it seems pretty likely the bad guy qualified for at least a display of deadly force.
That Mr. Savage is 75 years old and stands 5’6″ tall would have been factors, as police, prosecutors, a judge and/or a jury must consider the totality of circumstances.
Should it have been a defensive gun use? Not to steal a catchphrase (much), but we report you decide.
“Both men involved in the fight claimed the other started it, according to an incident log. Spokeswoman Laurie Nilsen said the two men placed each other under citizen’s arrest and were released at the scene.”
You’re under arrest! No YOU’RE under arrest! Nu uh! I said it first!
they were both simply resisting each-others resistance
CA is known to be anti gun, but SF in particular is known at least as much for something else, making this a good bet to be a lovers’ spat over who gets to cuddle the toy poodle. While being done by the other.
What are you talking about?
“Only steers and queers come from Texas, Private Cowboy! And you don’t look much like a steer to me so that kinda narrows it down.”
Larry must not listen to much conservative radio.
There’s conservative radio in SF?
“As Tiburon is adjacent to San Francisco, we know one thing for certain: if Mr. Savage had brandished a firearm, the SFPD would not have looked upon his armed self-defense favorably.”
Since Tiburon is merely “adjacent to” SF (in fact, it’s on the other side of the bay in a different county), I doubt the SFPD’s opinion on the matter counts for much.
Savage carries whether he’s allowed to or not, in SF or otherwise. He’s friends with gavin newsom (the conseravtive indignation is his shtick) so any cases he may catch wont go very far. He’s very aware of whom he can and cannot shoot.
Savage has previously said that at one time he had a CCW license. Not sure if he still does.
At 75, I’d carry regardless.
According to Wikipedia (yeah, I know), he has residences in:
* Tiburon, CA
* Larkspur, CA
* San Francisco, CA
* Beverly Hills, CA
* West Palm Beach, FL
If he has a carry permit, maybe it was issued in Florida.
He needs armed guards. Period.
He has a toy poodle!
He doesn’t need armed guards, he just needs a bigger caliber dog. Shithead McLoudmouth would very likely have looked for someone else to vent his Trump Derangement Syndrome on if Savage had been accompanied by a Doberman instead of a toy poodle.
As near as I can tell (I Lived in the Bay area back in 1995) Michael Savage was the origin of the comment “Liberalism is a mental disorder.”
It is just as likely Michael Savage derangement syndrome as it is Trump derangement that instigated this dust-up. Lot of Liberals have hated M.S. for a lot of years.
Probably so. Either way, 50 more pounds of canine would have altered the dynamic considerably.
Savage can afford to live wherever he wants. I take it that he cares less about his gun rights than about the fine amenities of living in SF. He’s aware that his huge contribution to local taxes enriches the gun-hostile municipal, county and state governments. So if it was an issue for him, he could move to AZ or wherever.
As far as this particular slap-fight is concerned, it’s just as well nobody was shot.
Rather than move out of state, it would make sense for him to maintain a residence in one of the California counties that does issue permits.
If you actually listened to savage you know that he does infact care about the 2nd and is avid supporter as well as has his ccw. He stays in SAN fan sicko because of the weather.
Ummm…this qualifies as assault. Yeah a senior citizen is well within hin rights to shoot the anti-Semitic bastard. Armed security Savage…
One might imagine there’s potential for a ‘hate crime’ charge in there somewhere.
Not anymore… not if you’re a Democrat.
Hans Kammler wouldn’t get prosecuted for a hate crime these days as long as he was wearing a “Free Palestine!” t-shirt… and registered Democrat.
Savage usually has wine with his dinner? A firearm would not have helped at that point. And yes; as a high profile individual living in a population of lock steppers (of course not all). He does have a CCW and carries (his words) just not with alcohol.
I cannot suggest whether or not this assault would justify deadly force because I do not have enough information.
For starters, calling someone names certainly does not justify using deadly force.
Pushing someone around does not justify using deadly force.
Throwing one punch may not justify using deadly force.
The only way that I can see such an encounter possibly justifying deadly force is if the attacker was very strong/fit, Mr. Savage was relatively feeble, the attacker announced his intent to severely beat/kill Mr. Savage, and then the attacker opened with a “haymaker” punch.
Whether or not this case involved ALL of those elements, I don’t know.
“Pushing someone around does not justify using deadly force.”
From the quoted sfgate.com article: “The man then pushed Savage to the ground”
Pushing a 75-year-old man (or anyone, for that matter) to the ground could very well result in great bodily injury or death. Deadly force is justified.
Actually yes it does. You’ve apparently never been in a real fight before. Getting punched in the head in real life isn’t like the movies. There isn’t some loud bashing sound and you don’t just wipe a little cut on your face and keep fighting. An average adult male, and even many teeage males, has enough strength to kill you with One good hard jab to your temple.
A jab? Really? A sharp jab will really sting, but it ain’t gonna kill you. Perhaps you meant hook, or uppercut.
Scrote McGee… sadly, you’re mistaken. I know of two people, actually,
who got a punch to the head and dropped dead. One punch and boom!
Lights out. 🙁 People should be writing to the Marin County Sheriff’s office
(or ??) to insist that this perpetrator be brought to justice.
Maybe, but it is fairly unlikely they were killed by jabs.
Hank,
I know full well that a single punch can be life-threatening. Unfortunately, juries rarely see it that way. Thus, my standard that I described above is what will likely pass muster with real-world juries.
Throwing one punch or, as appears to have happened here, pushing the victim to the ground does not justify defense with deadly force unless the assailant continues the assault.
A single punch to the head is enough to break bones and/or cause a brain hemorrhage. Either qualifies as an injury serious enough to justify defense using deadly force. Elsewhere in this thread, I gave one example of that happening where I live. Another was a cop who was sucker punched by a guy causing a disturbance at a gas station. Here, at least, someone who defended the injured party would have been praised instead of prosecuted.
“Calling someone names certainly does not justify using deadly force.”
True, but it’s not “calling someone names” to call someone by their legal name.
The other man called Michael by his legal name, which is Michael Wiener.
I could also pretend my last name was “Savage” and call myself “Dave Savage” if I was pretentious like Michael Wiener, but if someone still called me by my legal last name, I wouldn’t whine and cry and say “They’re calling me names!” It’s not hard to get a legal name change, but Michael Wiener didn’t even bother to do that!
Still, it doesn’t justify pushing Michael Wiener to the ground or punching a passerby.
I love the fact that they both did a “citizen’s arrest” of each other!
One question: were there any grownups in the area besides the passerby?
There has to be a threshold. Are you thinking you have to wait until you have been beaten unconscious before you can legally defend yourself? Because I’m saying that is too late. I’m not quite as old as this guy, but if I were pushed to the ground by some thug, I would draw and fire, the only thing which would stop that would be the lack of a target, he’s out of range. I am not physically capable of going mano-a-mano with a street punk, and I do not intend to surrender my life because someone thinks a stupid law requires it. From the ground, I would shoot him in the back, the front, the top, the bottom, either or both sides, don’t even give a hoot. If I just had a glass of wine with my dinner that would not change the answer a whit, that does not earn a death sentence.
Was Savage in reasonable fear of death or grievous bodily injury? If not, then a DGU would be out of the question.
Was Savage inWould a jury agree that Mr. Savage had a reasonable fear of death or grievous bodily injury? If not, then a DGU would be out of the question.There, fixed that for you.
Once the attacker is dead, it’s your word against – a corpse. Hard to lose that debate.
It could be very easy to lose that debate if there are additional witnesses.
…Or physical evidence…
He should have sicced the dog on him.
Every toy poodle that I have ever met, no matter how calm or sweet,
Has somewhere inside them, a mean, dastardly, vicious, berserker.
With some it’s buried deep, and others, it’s just below the surface,
but it is always there.
Teacups are worse.
I doubt this rose to a level that would justify a DGU. The assailant appears to have quit after shoving the old guy to the ground. Had he continued, the disparity in size and age would have justified defense using deadly force. We don’t yet know whether his motivation was antisemitism or left-wing intolerance for dissenting opinions. I hope there is surveillance video to show who did what to whom.
I consider the assault on the bystander to be more serious. A reasonable person would have let the bystander intervene. Instead, this guy punched him out. That, by itself, deserves conviction and jail time. Last year, where I live, a guy made disparaging comments toward two gay men and punched out a friend of theirs for speaking up in their defense. He is now serving a prison sentence for felony assault. If you intend to intervene in situations like these, even if it’s just to de-escalate, be prepared for a hostile, even physical, response.
If Michael Savage had not been beaten to the point that he needed to go to an icu ward, there is absolutely zero, nil, nunca, niet, way that the Tiburon PD would have not locked him up, the DA would have prosecuted, the court would have convicted, the civil courts would have seized ever asset the man had ever made in the united states of America and he’d have spent the rest of his natural life in prison.
Not saying its right, but Marin county is just SF north.
They don’t tolerate armed self defense ever.
In the bay area, you do only have the right to die.
A man in NYC was sucker punched once, fell down, hit his head on the pavement and died the next day. Perp was only charged with simple misdemeanor assault as NYC has a wacky law that states only if more than one punch were thrown can it be considered even manslaughter.
So yes, if anyone that I do not know raises their fists at me, I feel fully justified in pulling out a piece, aiming it and being prepared to fire if at any moment the perp makes any further that I perceive to be a threat. Because fuck the above scenario.
First off, being anywhere in the Bay Area is asking for trouble as a well-known conservative, especially if you are NOT and illegal alien, LGBT, relative of Pelosi, etc…
Secondly, ditch the “poodle” and get a German Shepard, Pit bull, American Bulldog, or Rottweiler. I have two of them (160 lbs. combined), and can’t tell you how much respect I get when walking them in the hood. If that doesn’t work, the 40 cal. on my hip is available as backup.
dogs and a gun is the best security anyone can have. i laugh every time i hear a “security” commercial
anyone with any knowledge of ccw knows that ccw is granted by county. marin county gives ccw to police, fire dept, and emergency peronell, and no one else. just like many other counties in california. so anyone who lives in marin sanoma sanbernadino la sandiego…etc are unarmed when in public, unless they are carrying illegally. he was attacked, blindsided, by a man much larger and stronger. if this happened in a conservitive area and the attacker was shot dead while in the act, the community would feel justice had been served. this guy will get whats coming to him. may not have been arrested, but he will have his day in court
The perp would have been a chew toy if he messed with any of the standard poodles my parents had.
He has said he has a CA carry license as well as for FL.
Michael Savage has probably carried a gun since the late 1980s when he was stalked. Fortunately, his stalker when to jail. He then got a CCW and took training classes. He has talked about this on his radio program. His attacker is an example of “Liberalism is a mental disorder”. The title of his first political book. He is a huge 2A supporter. I have been a listener since 1994, before he went national.
When Alan Berg, a talk radio guy, has shot and killed many conservative radio people went and got a gun. If they did not have one already. I remember at the time every talk radio host talked about this murder.
http://www.denverpost.com/2010/08/17/neo-nazi-who-shot-denver-radio-host-alan-berg-dies-in-federal-prison-in-pa/
Michael Savage is the kind of hardcore conservative libertarian I like.
Michael Savage is a douche bag. He’s pro-gun, then anti-gun, pro-Trump then anti-Trump…Alzheimer’s has set in on this freaking idiot scumbag maggot.