Previous Post
Next Post

I’m aware that not all TTAG readers share my opinion on all things gun-related. Which is why Dan, myself and the rest of the team read our comments section: for a reality check. The feedback over on our Facebook page is even more, uh, critical. You might even call the commentators “groundlings,” but I couldn’t possibly comment. Except to say that when I FB’ed this video of an Oakland Park, Florida biz owner beating back armed robbers (click here for the story) with the caption “Too Much?” a mess of folks reckoned…nope. Not enough. Like this . . .

Del Martin Corbett Never too much when your life is on the line, I would have beat the color out of his eyes… Branden Montgomery not gunna lie…I would of gone executioner there at the end. Jamie Brecht Too bad the owner didn’t kill both of the scumbags Chris Fielding He shoulda kept bashing the guy’s face til there was nothing left to bash. 

I understand the anger. And I can’t say what I’d do in the same situation (obvs). This much I do know: distance is your friend. The closer you get to your antagonist, the higher the odds he (or she) can mount a counter-attack. A bit of bashing and back away? That’ would-a done me. You?

Previous Post
Next Post


    • And being a defender means not stopping till the threat has stopped moving. A moving threat is still a threat.

    • This man appears to be an honest business owner who was pistol whipped and shot or shot at by another man without provocation. His reaction was perfectly reasonable. He didn’t look for what happened to him, they chose to storm his castle and attempt to kill him. No worries, these criminals will be back on the street in a few years to rape and pillage again, maybe it’ll be your family and you will see things a little differently.

      • ” No worries, these criminals will be back on the street in a few years to rape and pillage again, maybe it’ll be your family and you will see things a little differently.”

        Well said. Give a thug a slug not a hug. It’s not fear of killing that forces us concealed carriers to say we shot to stop the threat, it is the fear from the state killing us. The decision to kill an evil man, without hesitation should have been made before ever buying a gun for defense of innocent life.

        It is disgusting how many people say just let them go to prison. WE taxpayers pay for prison, for these things to be educated and fed better than working low income Americans.

        • Worse, they get a gymnasium so they can build up muscles they’ll use on the outside to beat people.

          The worst thing we can do is pay to give a man who has already demonstrated he’ll use physical force…the means to have more such at his disposal.

      • Yup, still moving, still a threat, as you have no idea if the bad guy has another weapon. Stop moving, I will be glad to back away and wait for LEO. Move again, repeat until threat is eliminated.

        • “Yup, still moving, still a threat, as you have no idea if the bad guy has another weapon”

          I will show the same amount of mercy that the evil bastard was willing to show innocent people. NONE. It is not my place to be judge, but as a Peacemaker it is my duty to send an evil man to God, so that judgement may happen.

          My defense for the bullets that would be in their skull basin is rather simple. I will take the affirmative defense of Scary movies made me do it. The bad guys always come back to life in scary movies, unless they had a bullet in the brain stem.

    • If I’m on the jury I see all kind of movement from the perp.
      Keep hitting til it stops.
      If its policy for cops, its policy for the publlc.

        • I’m not so sure. But people here seem to be generally opposed to agents of the state going over the top, not victims of attempted murder.

        • If the cop was alone and surprise attacked, by far most here would be OK with him defending himself. Those, myself included most likely, that reflexively take anti-agents-of-state positions, would generally be swayed by “if he moves, keep hitting” logic, which seems pretty much like standard procedure for dealing with a violent assault these days.

          OTOH, if there were 2-10 other cops, guns drawn, backing the beater up, which seems to be the case more often than not in cops-beat-civilian type cases………

    • It looks like the gun didn’t work. The victim kept trying to rack the slide, then you can see the slide locked open and then it was nothing but a club.

      • It is possible that the gun was defective or completely unloaded to begin ith. Renting a gun cost more if you want bullets, and the more bullets, the more it costs.

  1. There’s a fine line between justified self defense and getting your freak on. I’m more than willing to give the victim the benefit of the doubt and the emotions of the moment. Let him have a pass. But I’m not the Man.

    The Man might say Too Much and bring the Hammer down on the victim.

    • ” But I’m not the Man. The Man might say Too Much and bring the Hammer down on the victim.”

      Yes, you are. I can’t call you brother because of your life choices to prey on others, when you were a CO.

      Previous generations have allowed the government to become this way, and it is OUR responsibility to make America a nation of Laws again. Or WE can continue being comfortable cowards and accept spending life in prison for defending ourselves, from the evil savage beasts of our society.

      • If by CO you meant corrections officer you labor under a misunderstanding. I worked in a prison as a contract driver for a non profit org that provided services for inmates and their families. I went into the inmate population on a daily basis for a lot less money and bennies than the CO’s did.

        Now, outside of the phony war on drugs, there is a true need for prisons in this country. There really are some really phucked up people that need a knee in the neck. IMHO the inmate population could be reduced by a large number by ending this phony war on drugs.

        But I don’t see that happening too soon. Much too much profit being made by the wrong people.

        • I stand corrected, I just figured you were a sadistic knuckle dragger, which is what all COs and LEOs contain as their character.

          “There really are some really phucked up people that need a knee in the neck”

          Bullet to the head or an abrupt stop from the slack in the rope departing. That is criminal justice reform, deterrence, and a tax break.

          I agree with the war on drugs being just a function of state theater to steal from the tax payers, but that was allowed from the previous generations of comfortable cowards. They didn’t have the information available to make the hard choices without the Government’s permission.

    • Legally, you are absolutely correct. Remember that case where the pharmacist shot one robber, ran out the door and fired at the other, re-entered the pharmacy, retrieved a second gun, and finished off the guy laying on the floor? He was justly convicted of first degree murder. The rule is “stop the threat,” not “execute the perp.”

      This case is close to the line. The perp on the ground was still a threat and trying to escape, Until subdued, he was subject to being lawfully struck. But at the same time, it appears that the owner was seeking to inflict punishment, and that is not lawful.

  2. I wouldn’t say it was too much but he would have been better off just calling the cops. He already had the guys gun so either make the call or have someone else call while he holds the thug down.

    • When the gun was in slide-lock, the old bald dude was basically unarmed.
      If perp #1 was still in fighting shape, and perp #2 was still running around with a gun, the threat was far from contained.

      • First camera view shows at least three rounds came through the wall, so perp #2 was still in it for a while. Second camera shows he fired into the room (forgot rule 4), then decided it was time to boogie and let his “friend” deal with the pissed victim on his own.

        • Watching the video, it appears that the good guy may have taken a round or two.
          Maybe the leg from the first shots, then watch the timing of the second or lower how appear in the wall as the dude moves.
          Scary stuff.

        • Tom, that was my impression as well. And, if he did take a round or two, I am REALLY not going to question his defensive beat-down. I’m not sure the perp took a bullet, the ass-whuppin’ might have been the only thing keeping him from escaping/attacking again. I’m applauding Victim #2, as well, he stuck his nose in when he didn’t have to.

    • It’s never too late to have an honest, open, reasonable conversation….
      If we would just agree to a 1% sales tax increase, just another 1%, to fund after-school meals for low income urban starving children all this wouldn’t happen.

      If it just saves 1 person….

  3. At the point the guy was crawling away he should have been calling the cops especially since it looked like that pistol stove piped. Attacking leaves you open at that point if the other guy comes back for his buddy. It’s possible adrenaline took over but even so it’s probably a bit too far.

    Not to say that the guy didn’t have it coming but he was probably having a bad enough day considering he got shot and was going to get a tour of the local jail after things got squared away.

  4. You know, if this was a gun-free zone this would have never happened to begin with. It’ll all be unicorns and rainbows…

  5. So, after watching it a couple of times and thinking about it, at least trying to think about it from the defender’s point of view (and I mean physically what he could see), no, it was not too much.
    Two people tried to shoot him. He disarmed one, ONE. He does not know where the other armed shooter is. The one that he does know is now still conscious, able to resist, and able to put up a fight. He didn’t beat him unconscious, he didn’t beat him until he was unresponsive. He does not know if he has another weapon on him, he has not searched him.
    Consider that the other attacker could return at any second and if he let that guy go he could then have the same two attackers returning to finish the job. Maybe they bring friends. Heck, I would consider the odds of that pretty good.
    So no, the threat was still very much present. You fight until the threat is stopped. I would hope that, in his shoes, I would have fought until the attacker was unable to continue to aggress.

    • So the same person that thinks we have too many cops, also thinks citizens shouldn’t police their own homes or businesses.
      There is self defense, then there is justice. If the owner ran away then the thug would have run away to assault another day.
      I would rather catch a bad guy than a lion in a petting zoo.

      • “So the same person that thinks we have too many cops, also thinks citizens shouldn’t police their own homes or businesses.”
        That was so far away from what I said I am wondering if you meant it as a response to my comment.

        I’ve never said we have too many cops, and I don’t think we have too many cops. I’d actually like to see more cops actually walking around and patrolling. And I have no idea where I would have suggested, much less in that post, that citizens shouldn’t police their own homes or businesses.

      • @mike
        “So the same person that thinks we have too many cops, also thinks citizens shouldn’t police their own homes or businesses.”

        A response in left field like that, You must be the drunk guy who wrote that article for the contest.

        Are still upset that JW said he would use his Second Amendment, as intended, by shooting a state sanctioned criminal who is actively in commission of brandishing a firearm and threatening a fellow citizen.

        • What’s your beef with me guy? You won’t like me more after this reply but I will try to be civil.
          First of all, who the fuck is JW? Why would you think I am mad at him for saying something I agree with? I have been extremely clear on my stance with the 2nd amendment. I’m right up there with Chip, John and JR, so I don’t know what the heck you are talking about.
          My comment (from left field to those with no literary sense) was directed a RF who consistently advises gun owners to not [take the law into your own hands]. That’s worthy advice if personal survival is the only goal. My point is, it is hypocritical to call for smaller police force if one is not willing to fight for the good of the community.
          Lastly, you know damn well I wrote that article. My name was on it.

    • I would say the beat down was surplus to requirements, however, that is from the luxury of an objective and uninvolved perspective.

    • When more than one attacker, fight them only once and be sure they are out of the fight for good. That may mean holes that are leaking important fluids, dislocated elbow, knee, etc, but don’t take the chance they will return to the fight. Unconscious isn’t even enough unless they are restrained, as that can be faked.

      Given multiple attackers, I don’t think he did enough to end the fight with the first one.

    • I must confess that I saw a couple opportunities to back up and attempt to clear that gun. If possible, the need to continue the beating and the exposure to punk #2 would be gone, and continued movement could prompt a kick in the head. Of course, I have no idea if the victim had any idea about how to handle a gun other than pull the trigger.

  6. Nah, no excessive force here. In fact, the captured guy is extremely lucky he wasn’t killed. It wasn’t for a lack of trying but the pistol seems to have been a POS because the texting guy who took control of the situation appeared to have failed to get even one round off. He was pretty fortunate too because the criminal in the garage bay fired a shot at him that penetrated the wall at heart level just inches from his torso.

    Without any audio it is hard to conclusively analyze the incident.

    • According to the story he shot the 1st attacker several times and got a shot off at the second attacker after being shot himself. The gun might not be jammed, but just locked back on an empty chamber.

    • If you start at 1:24, around 1:25/1:26 the pistol appears to jump (recoil most likely?) and it looks like a casing flys, so it seems quite likely the defender shot at (I think he hit him, but could have missed) the aggresor.

  7. The problem with stopping the beating is that he’s already threatened the victim with lethal force and that he keeps moving. If he stays still and follows directions then the beating should stop.

  8. The shop owner delivered a righteous beating in self-defense. Gotta stop the threat… and if the bad guy’s still moving, HE’S A THREAT. Not to mention his buddy who ran off might come back with more unwanted visitors.

  9. I give the guy credit for going total apeshit crazy on the bad guy and disarming him. That takes HUGE brass appendages of the spherical kind. He took a couple of swats to the head himself, so he gave back what he got. The employee sitting out in the garage area took off as quick as he could and made a successful escape. Bad guy #2 saw his best chance of survival was to beat feet also.

  10. The robber was still active and resisting, so no, the beatdown wasn’t too much. And speaking only for myself, it was a lot of fun to watch.

  11. There’s sometimes a conflict between legal and moral. Legally, it’s not kosher to whip someone’s ass after you disarm them. Morally? I’m cool with it. Just don’t expect me to fund your defense when it’s videotaped. You breaks the law and you takes your chances.

    Now, if I’m on the jury? Could be a good time for some nullification.

    • In jurisdictions without a duty to retreat, he was perfectly justified in continuing to try to subdue the thug. The thug continued to resist and struggle. It was his duty to demonstrate that he was no longer a threat by doing something along the lines of lying flat on this stomach and spreading his arms and legs out.

      When he had the owner on the floor, he showed that he knew the importance of using an arm bar and taking other steps to make sure the owner was subdued. He learned first hand that it takes more than just wanting to subdue someone to ensure he stays subdued.

      The owner learned that lesson as well and had no obligation to trust the thug to remain submissive without clear demonstration that he was no longer a threat.

      Add in that there was another thug running around with a weapon and I think the owner was justified in killing the thug since he continued to resist. Thug is fortunate that the owner did not go that route, as he was fully justified legally and morally in doing so.

    • @Tarrou: I think it is an assumption to think that the guy on the ground is truly disarmed. He could have another gun, knife or whatever. The original victim cannot be sure of that. He is trying to stop the BG from moving and the BG is not complying. So, he keeps hitting him. Probably telling him to be still. But, without an audio feed it is really hard to tell anything. Still, I think he was justified. And, as many others have said, is not sure where the second guy went or if he is still a threat. The end of the video is confusing though. Looks like the second perp comes back and tries to do something to the young guy on the bench. Then they both end up running away. Not sure what that is all about. And why was the guy on the bench still sitting there like nothing happened ?

      • You’re talking about a replay from a different camera (there were at least 3). Replay with that in mind and I think it will be more clear.

    • @tarrou
      “There’s sometimes a conflict between legal and moral”

      That is why the Founders of this nation said the Constitution is only for a moral people.

      The law is supposed to be based on morality and it is not moral to be complacent in the continuation of evil.

      The criminals made a conscious choice to forfeit their right to life.

  12. Also, after reading the story, this sounds a lot more like a failed execution than an attempted robbery.

  13. There was a second bad guy with a gun. Either beat the first guy until he’s out or put a bullet in his head so that you can deal with the second threat. Was he supposed to check the guy for other weapons? Maybe set his gun down to do so? If he was alone I could see the case for him going to far, but there was at least one more threat, and they were not playing nice. Knowing he wasn’t alone, i would have shot him in the face and dealt with the other treat to my life.

    • Shooting the BG in the face after he was disarmed would get you a murder rap. Not a good idea.

      • He would have known there were several cameras recording the action. I would not have found him guilty of anything after watching that video.

    • @AZmark
      “Knowing he wasn’t alone, i would have shot him in the face and dealt with the other treat to my life.”

      That is the correct course of action, if America was based on equal justice.

      WE in America are subjects not citizens, which means you have to fear being victimized by the state more than the street criminals.

      If you are an older American it is your fault that you cannot protect yourself, without fear of being sued by a criminal.

    • Cops play by a different set of rules and can get away with a lot more than the rest of us. Not fair maybe but true. Don’t try to do what the cops do unless you are one.

  14. He has to restrain him somehow. He probably played like the gun was still fireable while whipping him. “Don’t run…(whack)… I’ll shoot, damn it!… (whack)…DON’T RUN!” The blows reinforce that the victim is still able, not wounded, and now armed, so retreat is no option.

    I’ll finish by leaving this here;

  15. What kind of person would ask if the bad guy robbing a person at gun point was not treated fairly when things did not go his way? Pathetic.

  16. Wait, I thought the BAD GUYS would take HIS GUN and use it against HIM?

    I’d call it mercy. I would not have stopped dispensing things that start with .4 and end with 5 until they were both horizontal.

  17. That is one bumbling-ass stick-up crew… The victim starts off in total Condition White and still manages to disarm, shoot, and beat the punk.

  18. Not too much fighting back. Not at all.

    Although I do wonder about the wisdom of standing over the guy like that. (Realizing, of course, that adrenaline and wisdom aren’t usually compatible.) The criminal could have pulled the same maneuver as the businessman, grabbing his legs to unbalance him, and then it’s back to square one. Or worse. Distance is your friend.

    • Ing, normally you would be right. Never get within reach, or even close. The guy on the ground was putting his hands toward the pistol. Still, when you know another way of keeping someone from crawling away, standing up, and running off to get another weapon, then coming back shooting, let me know. Some guy threaten my life, then grab my legs while I have a gun on him will get shot multiple times. I’ve been knocked down with a rifle or pistol in my hands and never turned loose.

  19. Neutralize the threat. The guy crawls away and pulls another gun or knife and comes back, then what? Where is his partner?

    It is not anger, just pure fear that the victim felt and he had to neutralize the threat.

    Wait til some of you keyboard warriors are in his situation, then we’ll see.

    The victim did good.

  20. I just saw this on the television machine-they gave him props on the (I assume) left or neutral tv crew. No debate either…meanwhile 3 attacks on women on Chiraq’s northside connected. No advice on being armed-just “don’t go out by yerself” young lady!

  21. Looked like bad guy was still fighting and therefore a threat. On top of that since there were two bad guys and one escaped he had to secure the one he had to make sure the cops got them both and avoid potential for future retaliation.

  22. If it would have been a cop fighting back he would not have hesitate to shoot the guy on the ground.

  23. There sure was an awful lot of britches bein hitched in that video.

    Maybe if they’d buy a belt they could get a damn job.

    And no, not too much. The aggressors came in with murderous intent, so anything up to and including death would be a reasonable result. Would not convict.

  24. the fellow being beat, is still a threat not listening to a command and trying too escape! personally I think the guy doing the beating was being merciful, he did not kick the guy to death
    its easy too be an opinionated observer who talks out of a nether region about woulda, shoulda, coulda not being there I’m not sure what my response would have been

    • Kind of like the ‘Nam, the Gulf, or Afghanistan. Don’t talk about how it should be done and how people should be treated, especially when the opponents don’t care about your set of rules, but follow their own, which advocate terror and murder. That black businessman likely had underwear the color of his skin when that gun got shoved in his face.

  25. HILARIOUS!!!!

    If you exchange the blows to the head for blows to the behind am I the only one who had a few flashbacks from childhood? You know trying to block your butt feebly while Dad patiently and methodically waits for an opening. Friggin hilarious now, back when I was 8 not so much LOL.

    Gonna text my Dad tell him I love him.

  26. Obviously those poor robbers were pistol whipped and threatened by their mothers when they were growing up. The poor boys (I mean Boys, note the capital letter) should have been taken trolling for sharks. I hear fish are attracted to dark objects against a lighter background and sports fishermen can always use more bait. They threatened, attacked physically two men who had submitted, with intent to rob their victims. All I have to say about the pistol whipping is the sucker should have ducked. Seriously, raising his hands toward me after all his brutality, I would have hit the scum myself. Begging for mercy and protecting yourself with your hands as a shield is a pretty good sign to me of “I won’t try anything more.” He shouldn’t have shot the drunk in the gut; he should have shot him in the sternum. We have a saying up here in regards to such violence directed against us. It is S and S; shoot and shovel. The only two things you need to do. They found the skeleton of a man 15 miles from me. He disappeared over three years ago and evidently had been having property line disputes with someone. You can sure bet the local townspeople will know how to act in future disputes with the perp, who is known by some but not the law. I simply ran my problems off to far away places. The old vigilante thing without a rope. Various of us tried the law, but the bleeding hearts let them off, after three assaults and three threats against other people, all of them while armed. Remember, you will always get law, but you may not get justice.

Comments are closed.