Screen capture by Boch. Via Instagram.
Previous Post
Next Post

Pro-tip: a gun isn’t a magic talisman. A Texas man learned that the hard way when he pulled his pistol while fighting with another man in an apartment complex parking lot. Instead of retreating to safety, the armed man drew his gun while advancing on his unarmed opponent. He apparently thought the gun would give him the protection he needed to administer a beatdown on the other man.

He thought wrong.

As residents watched and videoed the confrontation from above (while on the phone to 9-1-1), the younger, unarmed man took the gun away from the rather portly older gentleman. Whoops.

To his credit, the younger man showed great restraint and didn’t even point the gun at the man who only moments before threatened him with deadly force. Instead, he picked up his hat and walked away.

No doubt the police have seen the video. If the man who produced the gun wasn’t arrested, it would be a miracle. If you instigate or escalate a confrontation, it makes any subsequent claim of self-defense very difficult to prove. Videos like this one will not endear cops, prosecutors, or jury members to your case.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by PPV-TAHOE (@ppv_tahoe)

Those who oppose gun rights aren’t going to like what they see in a video like this. Those who exercise and defend their gun rights will watch this video and have doubts about any self-defense claims made by the guy who pulled the gun. After all, if it was self-defense, why didn’t he try to retreat or run away after brandishing the gun.

Absent something highly compelling that’s not seen in the video, the guy who pulled the gun looks to have committed one or more felonies.

The bottom line here: Generally speaking, unless there’s a great disparity of force, you can’t legitimately produce a firearm against an unarmed adversary who isn’t in the process of attacking you. The law will cut you some slack if you’re elderly, handicapped, or of slight build against a big, burly monster.

An attacker trying to use your head as a hammer against a hard surface (as in the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin incident) can be a legitimate reason to use deadly force. That would also be the case if an attacker is trying to use your melon as a soccer ball.

But to draw a gun during a fistfight as you advance toward your opponent doesn’t pass the self-defense smell test.

I’m reluctant to label this guy the “Irresponsible Gun Owner of the Day” not knowing all of the facts, but from what’s depicted in the video, his actions don’t meet the “Any Damned Fool” standard for reasonable and prudent behavior.

 

 

Previous Post
Next Post

128 COMMENTS

  1. From start. Was gun man the aggressor? If young man was being aggressive or using youth and condition as a weapon it makes a difference. I suspect not as young man got control of the weapon and then backed off.

    I am an old man. If I pull a gun on a young man it will be because he has aggressively sought out a physical fight which could prove fatal for me.

    • In my opinion this event is not quite as clear-cut as Mr. Boch suggests.

      You can see in the video that the younger purple shirt guy runs toward the older guy, covers a significant distance (40 feet?), knocks the older guy down, and then come and kicks the older guy’s head while he is down. At that point I believe the older guy would have been justified to use deadly force.

      Then it gets a bit murky when older guy gets up. Purple shirt guy is slowly backing up and a few feet away. Older guy is slowly advancing on purple shirt guy and draws his handgun. Was that justified? Hard to say. Purple shirt guy clearly demonstrated “means, motive, and opportunity” just a few seconds earlier. And purple shirt guy still has the “means and opportunity”. The only question is motive.

      Consider a parallel situation. A young punk shoots at you from a few feet away and happens to miss–then the young punk starts walking way with gun still in hand. All of the training which I have received says that you are still justified to use deadly force in that situation since the young punk still has his handgun in his hand (and demonstrated just a couple seconds earlier that he was willing to use it). If that standard holds true, how is this situation any different?

      • Just going to let you guys in on a little secret. When you are at the end of your life, you just have a few years left. So it’s not a big loss to mag dump into some asshole for shits and giggles, especially if you are about to die anyways. This is why young people need to take note, not to mess with old men.

        • Old guys (70+) in poor physical shape should arm themselves with a big can of wasp spray. It’s less of a loss if someone takes it away from you and probably more effective than a poorly handled firearm. Only risk is violating Federal pesticide rules.

      • Not sure what state you are in @Uncommon Nonsense, but under the law as written in most states (all that I know of) your right to claim “self defense” ceases the instant the “aggressor” breaks off action. There is no longer an IMMINENT threat so deadly force is not justified. Given some other circumstances, a prosecutor MIGHT consider the totality of the situation and might not choose to prosecute you simply for aggravated assault that you committed by drawing your gun and pointing it at the retreating former-attacker, but if you pull that trigger you better pray for a friendly prosecutor, a friendly judge, several friendly jurors, and an “assailant” with a long string of violent felonies to make jurors ignore the law and say “good riddance”

        • Xuan Loc,

          As I stated, things get a bit murky in this event assuming that younger purple shirt guy started the entire ordeal.

          We have to be really careful about the concept of “breaking off an attack”. Simply walking a few steps away from the victim certainly speaks to breaking off an attack. And yet the attacker could simply be pausing to revel in his/her initial strike only to resume the attack seconds later.

          And remember the legal doctrine of the “21 foot rule” where an attacker within 21 feet (who typically has a knife or bludgeon) is indeed an imminent threat since he/she can cover that distance and impart a fatal wound faster than a normal person can register the attack and respond. (Note that purple-shirt guy demonstrated that his feet–kicking older guy in the head while he was down–are bludgeons per-se.)

          So, what is your opinion of the parallel scenario where a young punk is within contact distance of a victim, shoots at (and misses) the victim, and then turns and takes a few steps away with gun still in hand? Is that attack over? Is the punk no longer an imminent threat which legally justifies deadly force in self-defense? If you believe that the hypothetical punk with gun in hand is still an imminent threat, why is purple-shirt guy with feet still attached to his body–and who used his foot as a bludgeon a few seconds earlier–not an imminent threat while he is within 21 feet of older guy?

        • There’s no such thing as the “instant an attacker breaks of aggression.”

          An attacker may simply be pausing to catch his breath to continue beating your head in. All these comments from people about the “moment the attack stops” don’t reflect the reality of some of these situations. You don’t really know when an attack is over and 3-5 seconds is nothing.

          Are you going to sit there and tell me if I’m pounding your face in and I stop to catch a breath and crack my knuckles before I return to beating you, you have now lost the right to hit or shoot me? I think not.

          Granted that’s not exactly the case here in this video but I think people should be careful to make assumptions about an attacker simply because they paused in their attack doesn’t mean they are done with you.

        • “the law as written in most states (all that I know of) your right to claim “self defense” ceases the instant the “aggressor” breaks off action”

          Florida and most other “castle doctrine” states have no such verbiage in their laws. Florida’s castle doctrine combined with stand your ground asserts the right to self defense against anyone that does not belong where you have a legal right to be. If I am at work, home, or in my car and an intruder/assailant forcibly enters the property or tries to forcibly remove me from that property, I have the right to defend myself with lethal force. My right to defend myself with lethal force does not end if the assailant changes his mind during the assault.

      • You need to pick better training. A punk walking away with gun in hand isn’t showing intent. By walking away, he has ended the confrontation. He may have fired all his ammo and considers the fight over, realized a case of mistaken identity, gave up after being wounded, achieved his goal, etc. if you shoot, you become the aggressor of the new conflict, and the punk can now claim self defense from that point. You could be justified in drawing and aiming in case he resumes hostile action, but not pulling the trigger or chasing him down. Since he’s no longer a threat to you, an exception would be if there were evidence that he was an imminent threat to others.

        You would be justified if the punk was showing intent to continue the fight, like running for a better tactical position, turns and raises his gun, or points the gun backwards while retreating.

      • In the first situation you’re never allowed to respond to a punch with a gun unless there’s a huge disparity in force.
        (That would be a 98 pound woman or frail elderly man attacked by a 300 pound Samoan guy.)
        In your second situation, innocence is like a window that opens and closes.
        When the man with the gun is pointing it at you, the law says you can go ahead and shoot back.
        When the man with the gun is running away, the innocence window has closed and you cannot shoot him in the back even though he’s holding a gun.
        If he turns back towards you, the window of innocence opens again and you can start blasting away

    • Agree with you jwm&uncommon.
      Completely. I have no idea how Boch thinks what he does. I question his judgment(carry a gat in a fannypack before CCL in Illannoy???).And much younger dude knocked old guy down aka Assault.

    • I want to see if Boch watched the same video I did.

      I see the younger man attacking the older guy right out the gate, covering distance.

      I also see the younger guy showing zero restraint after he gets the gun he walks up to the older guy and punches him in the face.

      I’m not sure where John Boch is coming from in his assessment. His article and description of events don’t seem to match the actual video at all.

      I don’t know what happened before the video, or who the actual aggressor was. But judging by this video alone it seems to be the younger man.

      • I believe the focus of the concern is on the moment when the old man gets back up after being attacked. Yes, the younger man committed assault (at least, according to this video which is all we have to go one), and should be charged as such. But then he backed away. The old man got up, pursued the younger one, shouted at him, then pulled his gunn as the younger man was backing up.

        THAT was the defining point, IMHO, in which the old man flipped from victim to aggressor. And in that moment, he then assaulted the younger one, who himself acted in self defense.

        Within the span of that short video, we saw two men completely swap roles and completely redefine their legal postures.

        • I’m not so sure about that, based upon how self defense laws are primarily written.

          Laws across the board pretty much state you can’t start a fight then claim self defense. If you’re the initial aggressor you lose your right to claim self defense because you started the violent confrontation.

          This is pretty common place amongst self defense law. If the physical altercation started in this video with the young man attacking the old, the young man no longer has a legal leg to stand on to claim self defense.

          Now I’ll agree that after an attacker has broken away/run away ect… you shouldn’t pursue him to “get yours”. Which it looks like the older bigger guy did. That probably isn’t going to go well in court especially with cameras rolling capturing the event.

          There’s also the possibility this video started rolling after things got physical and we missed the old guy do something to the younger guy. Perhaps the older guy was in fact the aggressor, but the first act of violence seen comes from the younger guy.

          Either way I don’t see how Boch can write this article like this without knowing so much. Based upon this video alone I can’t really tell who’s “bad” or “good”. I would go with neither without more evidence. Just Looks like a cluster fuck to me.

        • @Ron,

          When we train in professional instructor-led classes, we’re always taught that we adopt a mindset to stop the threat, not necessarily the person. If someone shoves me to the ground and kicks my head, they are an assailant and I am (legally) seen as the defendant. But if he stops and backs away, and when I get back on my feet I move toward him instead of away to increase distance, and then I pull a weapon and aim it at him, the dynamics of the situation have changed.

          As I mentioned above, all we have is the video provided, so I formed my argument accordingly. If there are additional factors (perhaps the young man verbally threatened to kill the old man), then of course the argument has to change as well.

          @uncommon,

          Yes, I read your reply to Xuan Loc. TBH, I tend to lean toward his opinion…but remember that we’re all discussing this specific incident and have only this video as evidence. Anything that changes our understanding of it would certainly warrant a change of argument for or against either of the two men involved.

    • Yea, I’m not sure what Boch is talking about. We dont know what lead up to it but it sure looked to me like mr charge up and smack on back of head was initial aggressor. Now he did approach and draw (bad idea) but he was clearly “Under attack” when he drew.

    • Yea, I’m not sure what Boch is talking about. We dont know what lead up to it but it sure looked to me like mr charge up and smack on back of head was initial aggressor. Now he did approach and draw (bad idea) but he was clearly “Under attack” when he drew.

      it was 3.7 seconds from the last kick he took on the ground to the “draw and close”. All of us can sit here and second guess his decision for as long as we like. He had 3.7 seconds.

      • “He had 3.7 seconds.”

        I saw the video. People should keep in mind that he just had his brains scrambled along with an adrenaline dump. He may have just been in survival mode at that point. Like you said, we’re talking about seconds. I’m glad he didn’t pull the trigger. Never pull a gun unless you’re ready to shoot, and never pull one out of anger.

        • Exactly.
          Be calm, de-escalate, disengage.
          If at any moment you believe your life is in imminent danger, present your firearm and neutralize the threat. If the threat continues, wash, rinse, repeat.
          Take the shot, own the shot.

          The guy presenting his firearm and then CLOSING the distance on his attacker? 🤪

  2. Not sure if it’s a browser issue on my end or an incompatible link but do we have a different link to the video?

  3. The video I see starts with the young man as the aggressor. I am sure we are not getting the whole thing. No sense of what started it. After the gun is pulled the old man closed distance rather than keeping what distance he had. That is his downfall.

    • Absolutely agree. It would be informative to know the situation and circumstances that led up to the young nan rushing the old guy and knocking him down.
      A gun becomes an extreme liability if you are involved in a wrestling match. This is why most police have security holsters and why jail and prison guards do not carry guns. Cops are taught to keep their guns holstered while using physical force to subdue suspects. The old guy had the right to stand his ground and retreat was obviously problematic given his limited mobility, but he should not have closed with the young guy.

    • Should have had a buck 110 or vanguard 192, for a quick throat slit. A backup pistol would have been useful too, as he could have filled the guys chest cavity with powder fumes and hot lead.

  4. Video no worky

    Says “View on Instagram.” Nothing clicks or changes. Why not save and embed the videos on one of them pro 1 amendment sights?

  5. I can’t wait for all the people calling the Chicago sucker punch shooting legit self defense to watch this video

    • Yes, and I maintain that the Chicago incident was an open hand slap upside the head, not a punch. But, maybe we’ll see more evidence come to light, as with this incident.

  6. You have the Travon Martin situation ass-backwards. Travon, who had done nothing wrong, noticed he was being stalked. In SELF DEFENSE he attacked his stalker.

    Ironically he stalker, the initiator, the aggressor, claimed self defense and got off because he had a gun – thus he MUST be in the right.

    That’s why this whole attitude of being a good guy with a gun is not just dumb, it’s going to kill innocent people like Travon.

    • Travon’s Self Defense,

      Suppose that some creepy guy is following a man at a distance and it is very unnerving to the man. That does not legally justify the man suddenly rushing creepy guy, knocking him to the ground, and banging his head against a concrete sidewalk.

      • I’m not talking about the Travon incident, but it reminded me of another preemptive attack which was actually justified with a lie. It’s amazing what some people are allowed to get away with.

        Also, I can’t see the video for this post. I don’t have an Instagram account and don’t want one.

      • It sure does if you think your life is in danger. Plus he had the judgement of teenager. Travon acted in self defense

        • @ avatar Travon Defended Himself

          “It sure does if you think your life is in danger. Plus he had the judgement of teenager. Travon acted in self defense”

          What you are arguing for Trevon is ‘Preemptive self defense’, AKA ‘Anticipatory self-defense’. No such thing really in the U.S. law, in U.S. law its either self-defense or not self-defense. Judgement of a teen or not, basically its not a valid legal self defense unless the threat is imminent and unavoidable in a physical attack on you. Trevon could have left the area at any time, he chose to stay to get into an altercation with Zimmerman. There was zero evidence that Zimmerman posed such an imminent threat to Trevon even though Zimmerman was following him, simply following someone does not rise to the level of imminent threat legally although it might give one pause to think about preparing just in case. Basically, its only when that person following becomes aggressive in inflicting serious bodily harm or death does it become imminent.

          Travon did not act in lawful self-defense, he acted in anger and rashness, instigated and pursued the attack on Zimmerman. Basically; This is why Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense was valid, because as the victim Zimmerman had no duty to retreat and could stand his ground and act in self defense. This is also why Zimmerman was acquitted of all charges, because Travon instigated the attack on Zimmerman.

          Travon Martin did not act in lawful self-defense, period.

        • “Travon acted in self defense”

          What if it was your underage daughter who was being stalked by a creepy man in a car with a gun, who then parked and approached her shouting commands?

          I guess if it’s your daughter you’re right, she should submit to strange men who accost her at night in a parking lot.

        • Let’s think about your hypothetical. If a girl thinks she’s being stalked, she isn’t going to try to ambush the stalker unless it’s a last resort life or death situation. She’s going to immediately vacate the area. That would include knocking on someone’s door for safety and calling the police. If Travon was a girl, she would still be alive.

        • “she isn’t going to try to ambush the stalker unless it’s a last resort life or death situation. She’s going to immediately vacate the area“

          Oh, OK, women by themselves in a dark parking lot will never ever face a life or death situation, you are so right.

          Well, that means since women will never face a life or death situation like that, why should they arm themselves, they can just “immediately vacate the area”.

          The technical term for that is pretzel logic.

        • You just changed your “If Travon was your underage daughter” hypothetical to a woman in a dark parking lot facing a life or death situation. What are you even talking about at this point? Does the woman in danger ambush the stalker and proceed to mount him and ground and pound him a la Travon? I mean, what’s your point, Miner? How about this: she should try to avoid a confrontation, but if it comes to that it would be better to be armed. It isn’t complicated.

    • Dude, Travon was whooping GZ’s ass!!! That kid was tough enough to throw that evil white dude down, mount him, and use his head to try and crack the curb. GZ pulled out Kel-Tec PF9 and shot him in self defense. Just IMAGINE……..if the skin colors were *reversed*……and reconsider the Zimmerman / Travon incident. Your perspective might change.

      • Travon believed his life was in danger.
        Travon defended himself.
        Travon got the upper hand by straddling Zimmerman.

        BUT

        Did Travon neutralize the threat? Hell no. He might have won a point in a wrestling match, maybe, But Zimmerman was fighting back

        How do you neutralize a threat with your bare hands from a straddling position?

        Hmm?

        How are you trained to floor it?

        • “How do you neutralize a threat with your bare hands from a straddling position?”

          Side choke. Or just don’t start fights.

        • @Travon’s Just Self Defense

          “Travon believed his life was in danger.
          Travon defended himself.
          Travon got the upper hand by straddling Zimmerman.”

          First, you don’t know what Travon believed unless you can some how slip- into the after life and get a statement from him.

          But even in your own comments you outline that Travon assaulted Zimmerman (e.g. “Travon got the upper hand by straddling Zimmerman.”)

          What you are arguing for Trevon is ‘Preemptive self defense’, AKA ‘Anticipatory self-defense’. No such thing really in the U.S. law, in U.S. law its either self-defense or not self-defense. Judgement of a teen or not, basically its not a valid legal self defense unless the threat is imminent and unavoidable in a physical attack on you. Trevon could have left the area at any time, he chose to stay to get into an altercation with Zimmerman. There was zero evidence that Zimmerman posed such an imminent threat to Trevon even though Zimmerman was following him, there was zero evidence that Travon believed his life was in danger, simply following someone does not rise to the level of imminent threat legally although it might give one pause to think about preparing just in case. Basically, its only when that person following becomes aggressive in inflicting serious bodily harm or death does it become imminent.

          Travon did not act in lawful self-defense, he acted in anger and rashness, instigated and pursued the attack on Zimmerman. Basically; This is why Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense was valid, because as the victim Zimmerman had no duty to retreat and could stand his ground and act in self defense. This is also why Zimmerman was acquitted of all charges, because Travon instigated the attack on Zimmerman.

          Travon Martin did not act in lawful self-defense, period.

      • Zimmerman was the stalker. Justice has gotten wrong before.

        Moral to the story. Zimmerman was not the good guy with a guy, but he bought into the fantasy and now he’s a murderer.

        • The TravonM/GeorgeZ debacle was a perfect storm of stupid. Both were exhibiting scummy behavior.

          Where’s the real scum in this thread? 🤔
          That would be the shape shifting trolls who use disposable usernames so they can distance themselves from their stated positions.

          D!ckless wonders abound here on TTAG.

    • Travon lost all sense of being a ‘victim’ when he proceeded to bash Zimmerman’s head repeatedly against the concrete sidewalk.

      Trayvon Martin got exactly what he deserved that night…

    • dacian the demented dips***, ‘zat you????

      If not, we have a new brainless troll to join our forum. Welcome, dimbulb!! Stick around for the games of whack-a-mole; you’ll make a terrific target!

      You’ll have to contact dacian the demented to see if you can qualify for his group “activities”.

    • “4) Did George Zimmerman continue to follow Trayvon Martin after a police dispatcher told him not to do so? Keep in mind that George Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch captain and there had been 8 burglaries there in the preceding 14 months. Additionally, most of those crimes were committed by young black males. Furthermore, while there are no indications that Martin was doing anything illegal when he ran into Zimmerman, it’s worth noting he had been suspended from school for possession of a “‘burglary tool’ and a bag full of women’s jewelry.” Given all of that, it doesn’t seem remarkable that Zimmerman may have initially followed Martin.

      However, after calling the police and reporting what he believed was Martin’s suspicious behavior, the 911 dispatcher told Zimmerman he didn’t need to continue to follow Martin. It’s worth noting that the dispatcher had no legal authority to tell Zimmerman what to do and even if Zimmerman continued following Martin, it wouldn’t be a crime. Regardless, Zimmerman says he obeyed and began walking back to his truck to meet with a police officer when Martin confronted and then attacked him shortly afterwards. While it’s impossible to prove one way or the other with the evidence available, Zimmerman’s story is consistent with the facts presented at trial.

      5) Could Trayvon Martin have gotten away? Since Martin was being followed by someone he didn’t know, it would be perfectly understandable if he was alarmed by that and worried about his safety. Given that, while he was not legally obligated to flee, it should be noted that Martin had at least two opportunities to do so. In fact, his friend Rachel Jeantel, who famously noted that Martin referred to Zimmerman as a “creepy ass cracker,” admitted that she suggested he run away. Had he done so or had he even just walked home, he would have made it before Zimmerman ever arrived at the spot where they had their final confrontation.

      Although it is impossible to know for sure who threw the first punch or how the fight started, Martin had a second opportunity to break off his conflict with Zimmerman. When eyewitness John Good saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, raining blows down on him, he told him to “cut it out” and then said, “I’m calling 911.” At that point, Martin was in physical command of the situation, was obviously winning the fight and there was a witness. If he wanted to end things, he could have broken off the fight at that point and asked Good for help. Instead, he chose to keep on beating Zimmerman.”

      https://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2013/07/13/answering-7-key-questions-about-the-george-zimmerman-trial-n1639838

      Go away, lamebrain.

      • Not to mention that this was all done behind the gates in a private complex, not in a public space. The community got someone that did not even know Trayvon to say he was welcome on the property, but that was a thin excuse.

        • Intentionally misrepresenting the facts in order to support your position make sure entire argument bullshit.

          “The community got someone that did not even know Trayvon to say he was welcome on the property, but that was a thin excuse.“

          The fact is, Trevon Martin’s father and fiancé lived in the community, and Trevon was staying with his dad in that community.

          “The Retreat at Twin Lakes, the Sanford gated community in which Trayvon Martin’s father’s fiance lived, and where Martin was shot, was developed in 2004 and consists of 263 two-story townhouse units, a clubhouse, and a community pool. Much like the demographics of Sanford itself, the Retreat at Twin Lakes is relatively diverse—50 percent white, 20 percent Hispanic, and 20 percent black“

          https://archives.cjr.org/behind_the_news/reporting_trayvon.php?page=all

          20% of the gated community residents are black, Trevon was walking on the sidewalk carrying a bag of Skittles and a can of Arizona iced tea, Headed back to his father’s apartment, where was the crime that George Zimmerman was stalking him for?

          Oh I forgot, the felony of walking while being a young black male.

        • That dem candidate you were defending just a few days ago, miner, took a shotgun after a black man. His crime? Being black.

      • It doesn’t help your argument when you lie about material facts to support your position

        “George Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch captain“

        The facts:

        “When 28-year-old George Zimmerman was discovered by Sanford, Florida police standing over the body of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, they accepted Zimmerman’s claim that he killed in self-defense as a neighborhood watch captain. Now, through a statement released by the National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA) — the parent organization of USAonWatch-Neighborhood Watch — it has been revealed that Zimmerman was not a member of any group recognized by the organization. Zimmerman violated the central tenets of Neighborhood Watch by following Martin, confronting him and carrying a concealed weapon.“

        “NSA Executive Director Aaron D. Kennard, Sheriff (ret.) said in the press statement. “NSA has no information indicating the community where the incident occurred has ever even registered with the NSA Neighborhood Watch program.”

        https://thegrio.com/2012/03/21/zimmerman-not-a-member-of-recognized-neighborhood-watch-organization/amp/

        • “…..Now, through a statement released by the National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA) — the parent organization of USAonWatch-Neighborhood Watch — it has been revealed that Zimmerman was not a member of any group recognized by the organization. Zimmerman violated the central tenets of Neighborhood Watch by following Martin, confronting him and carrying a concealed weapon.“…..”

          So, is it a violation of ANY law to have a ‘Neighborhood Watch’ that’s not recognized by the “National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA) — the parent organization of USAonWatch-Neighborhood Watch”?
          🤔
          Oh, it isn’t, huh whiner.
          Cool strawman argument though dude. 👍

          “…….“NSA Executive Director Aaron D. Kennard, Sheriff (ret.) said in the press statement. “NSA has no information indicating the community where the incident occurred has ever even registered with the NSA Neighborhood Watch program.”…..”

          So, is it a violation of ANY law to have a ‘Neighborhood Watch’ that’s not registered with the NSA Neighborhood Watch program.”?
          🤔
          Oh, it isn’t, huh whiner.
          Cool strawman argument though dude. 👍

          Seems like you’re getting ready for Halloween early with all these strawmen you’re setting up.

          Enjoy the holiday.

          Oh, and be sure to keep posting regularly here on TTAG.

          The facts? Readers NEED a good laugh. 🤣

        • “So, is it a violation of ANY law to have a ‘Neighborhood Watch’ that’s not recognized by the “National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA)“

          George Zimmerman claimed he was the “captain of the Neighborhood Watch” in order to stake out some sort of authority to stalk and arrest any ordinary citizen on a whim.

          I’ve introduced evidence that shows George Zimmerman was not a member, much was the “captain”, of the officially recognized Neighborhood Watch.

          You’ve shown no evidence to support your position.

          The End.

        • So, you’re going with the moot points and strawmen here.

          Awwwwww, to bad you weren’t in that courtroom prosecuting that ‘rassiss’ George Z, huh? 🤪

          “You’ve shown no evidence to support your position.”

          🤔 Soooooo, show you those things AREN’T violations of any laws? 🤪
          Wow, put down the bottle when you post loser.

          There’s the end 🤡.

        • “…George Zimmerman claimed he was the “captain of the Neighborhood Watch”……”

          Oh, and what charge would you have placed on GZ for this?

          Impersonating an officer? 🤣

          Whinertard is a cornucopia of laughable statements today.

      • “it’s worth noting he had been suspended from school for possession of a “‘burglary tool’ and a bag full of women’s jewelry.”

        The so-called “burglary tool” was a screwdriver:

        “The investigator later saw Martin mark a door with “W.T.F.” or “what the f–k,” the report said. When the school cop searched Martin’s backpack the next day looking for the graffiti marker, he reported he found women’s jewelry and a screwdriver described as a “burglary tool,” the report said.

        Clearly, everyone on this list probably is a suspicious character because they all carry “burglary tools”, Better hope you’re never walking home and quiet at night and run into George Zimmerman.

        https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/trayvon-martin-suspended-from-school-three-times-report/1919381/?amp=1

  7. The older man got punched hard, knocked down then the younger POS kicked him in the head. There’s no reason to kick someone in the head unless you’re trying to do serious damage and/or kill someone. The problem here isn’t that the older man pulled out a gun, the problem is he still tried to physically fight the other guy.

  8. I have a lot of questions, one of them being: how did either of these Darwin Award nominees survive this long in life to meet in such a grudge match?

    • Yeah, pretty painful to watch in every way. ‘Murica! (that includes the northern half of the continent).

  9. Clearly something happened before the video started. It showed the young man charging the old guy punching him sending his sunglasses flying and then kicking him on the ground. The young man backs away seemingly taunting the old guy who then pulls a gun and charges the young guy, seemingly trying to pistol-whip the young guy and it degenerates into a wrestling match where the young guy loses his hat and the old guy loses his gun. After they separate they square off again and the old guy puts on the young guys dropped hat and more taunting ensues. This is the nuttiest thing I’ve seen, and there must be some familiarity between the two individuals for this not to end tragically.

    On the other hand it is Texas….

  10. Cowards shouldnt carry gun unless they are made from chocolate… The young man better be proud he found one that day..

  11. From the video posted with this article it looks like the young guy assaults the older guy first. He comes across the parking lot charging the older guy and assaults him.

    What’s not in the video?

    If whats shown in the video is all there is then at the point where the younger guy charges and assaults the older guy, if the older guy shot the younger guy then it would have been self defense here.

    • Maybe it was something dumb, like a parking dispute, and the older fellow called the young man a son of a cancerous whore. Who knows? If someone insulted my mother like that I would bust his ass too. Maybe I should be shot for that, or maybe old people should remember back to the good old days when you could just fight, and that was the end of it.

  12. “According to the videographer the gun was on safety” Uhhhhh yeah sure. Can you tell me what kind of weapon that is?

    Maybe he didn’t shoot because he knew he had no justification. He was just hoping the other guy would just run like the wind. Ooooooops

    • Not many people these days buying or carrying pistols that have a manual safety or even a grip safety much less a magazine disconnect safety. I would not be surprised if the gun had an empty chamber, manual safety or a grip safety that the young guy could not understand. That might have saved the old guy’s life.

      Regardless of the circumstances, the young guy needs shooting.

  13. If your wife or kid was being stalked and felt it was more prudent to fight than flee, then you would rightfully argue that there were acting in self defense.

    Well guess what? Travon Martin had the same right.

    1. Don’t assume because you have a gun that you are the good guy

    2. Don’t be shocked when, after stalking a person who had done nothing wrong, they fear for their life.

    3. Further, don’t be shocked if they try to neutralize you because they believe their life is in danger.

    You’re not a hero or a cop, just a guy with a gun.

    • tm could have just went home. Instead he attacked or at least confronted gz. tm was kicking ass right up till he wasn’t. The jury got it right.

      • Well, that’s the story that you choose to believe. I also believe that the privileged prick with the gun could have chosen to stay in his car, rather than stalk some kid into the darkness.

      • “tm could have just went home. Instead he attacked or at least confronted gz”

        Trevon was going home, back to his father’s apartment after buying a bag of skittles and an Arizona iced tea, he was on the phone with his girlfriend at the time as evidence shows. He was not casing apartments for burglary or thievery.

        George Zimmerman confronted Trevon, after following him in the car.

        • Martin’s girlfriend’s testimony was probably some of the strongest in securing Zimmerman’s acquittal.

          The case against Zimmerman was so bad the prosecutors were using defense attorney language: “consider the possibility”, “keep an open mind”, that kind of thing, while the defense was relentlessly pounding on facts and witness statements, like prosecutors usually do.

          It was ridiculous.

  14. Trayvon Martin was not a resident of the complex. Martin was a thief, a burglar, a drug addict, a drug dealer and a thug. He got thrown off the first bus to Sanford because he attacked the bus driver. He rode the second bus to Sanford with a kilo of marijuana shoved up his ass. Trayvon was casing empty houses for burglaries when Zimmerman followed him as the 911 operator instructed. Zimmerman’s big mistake was to not Shoot, (not) Shovel and Shut Up.

    • “I also believe that the privileged prick with the gun“

      George Zimmerman was used to the privilege because his father was a retired judge:

      “Before retiring to Florida in 2002, Zimmerman Sr. had served as a magistrate in Fairfax County’s 19th Judicial District.[3][6][7]“

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Zimmerman#Background

      “Trayvon Martin was not a resident of the complex. Martin was a thief, a burglar, a drug addict, a drug dealer and a thug”

      Intentionally lying about the facts make sure entire argument bullshit, Trevon’s father lived in the gated community.

      Trevon had no arrests for thievery, burglary selling drugs or any crime of violence.

      “He rode the second bus to Sanford with a kilo of marijuana shoved up his ass“

      I find it amusing that you are thinking about a young black man’s ass.

      • “Trevon…”

        That’s Trayvon, bub. The least you could do is get that fact correct.

  15. Young man is the initial aggressor, no doubt, However, after the knockdown and the punch to the head, he backs away. At this point, the fight is over.
    Then, old greasy fat guy gets up and starts a second incident. This time, *he* is the aggressor. This scenario was role played and explained in a training course I took.
    Old man is innocent until proven guilty, but this video is not helpful at all to the defense, and prosecution will love it.

      • The fact the man walked away, as a man should after winning a fight, should be all they need to stuff the firearm presenter in jail. If it was a fair fight, one on one from the front, you take your loss.

  16. Lesson #1
    Don’t be so fat that you can’t draw your pistol from the holster whilst on the ground.

    Lesson #2
    Why walk towards them while shooting? Nope. Just no.

    Lesson #3
    If he gets your gun, maybe he’s going to shoot your with it. Have a backup something.

    Lesson #4
    I know you are pissed, but if your beat down is over, and you still haven’t cleared leather, call the po-po and press charges. Attend the sentencing and smile and wave when they take him out to the prison bus.

  17. Now you know why civilized nations ban people from carrying guns. Give the naked ape a gun and he will use it the first time he gets pissed off.

    How many innocent people are murdered in road rage incidents every year. Again civilized nations ban carrying loaded guns in cars.

    • @dacian

      “How many innocent people are murdered in road rage incidents every year.”

      You need to learn what words mean – about 30 people are “murdered” in road rage incidents every year.

      How many people are shot in road rage incidents?

      A total of 1,732 people were shot in road rage incidents in the U.S. from 2017 to 2021, a five year period. But how many of those are actual valid self defense? About 80% were valid actual self defense. This is where the stats tend to slant preception – if a shooting in valid self defense happens in a road rage incident its just put down to a road rage shooting giving the impression that all shootings in road rage incidents were hostile road ragers using a gun in anger rage when that’s not true.

      But road rage directly causes over 1,800 non-shooting (no gun involved) injuries every year during the road rage incident. But what happens after the incident proximate? About ~95,000 or more drivers annually engage in non-gun involved road rage behavior, and out of those there are over 30,000 violent assaults by the road raging person after the incident proximate where the road raging person follows their target and later physically assaults them with blunt objects or hand/feet and sometimes ‘sharp/edged’ weapons and sometimes tries to run over them with their car.

      So if we could get cars off the roads and out of the hands of drivers we could decrease and stop road rage behavior and violence.

      • Booger brain you have a talent for twisting statistics and making unsubstantiated wild claims and generalizations, your legendary for that on this forum.

        quote———–and out of those there are over 30,000 violent assaults by the road raging person after the incident proximate where the road raging person follows their target and later physically assaults them with blunt objects or hand/feet and sometimes ‘sharp/edged’ weapons and sometimes tries to run over them with their car.——-quote

        Your too dumb to realize that your own post just proved how correct I was about how dangerous the naked ape is in starting road rage incidents and your solution is to put guns in their hands. Really, even a child could see how asinine that idea is. This does prove that there are more sane and intelligent children than the Far Right so called Adults. Your out of control paranoia makes reasoning with you an impossibility,

      • Dacian. You have not won an argument because you throw a tantrum. Or declare yourself the winner.

        Really. You argue like an uneducated child.

    • Thanks for proving without a doubt, that an armed society is a polite society. If you know that punching a guy who “offended” you on the road might get you killed, you’re going to think twice about it. If you try to drop kick an old man walking away from you – you might get killed. This young man is extremely lucky in that he survived the Dacian mentality, because most don’t.

    • dacian, I carry a gun everywhere. I get pissed off. I’ve never shot anyone, pointed my gun at anyone, or threatened anyone. Not the first time I got pissed off, not any other time. Your claims are false.

      I hope I never have to use a gun in self defense because that means that my life is in danger. Sounds terrible. I also hope I never have to use my fire extinguisher in the kitchen.

      What you’ve done is imagined in your mind the most extreme caricature of a gun toting redneck, decided that ALL gun owners are the caricature you’ve imagined, and then decided it’s your life mission to “fight” your imagination online. You live in ignorance in a fantasy world

  18. I’m a young man, and I only read a few comments. As a young man to older men, I would absolutely take into account our she difference should we find ourselves in an altercation, and 99.9% of the time it would just be verbal. But just because you’re old doesn’t give you carte blanche to just run your mouth either. If you wanna step, then prepare yourself.

    I miss the times you could just throw hands, then buy someone a beer then call it good. 🥺

    • “But just because you’re old doesn’t give you carte blanche to just run your mouth either. If you wanna step, then prepare yourself.”

      Great legal analysis, turdbrain. Tell that to the local prosecutor (assuming he/she isn’t a Soros-funded prosecutor) after your assault and battery arrest.

      Dumbass, “running your mouth” is not justification to resort to violence, under ANY conditions. You really do have a dacian the demented mental capacity. Do yourself and the world a favor, and grow the f*** up, eh???

  19. Tubby is fortunate to be walking instead of sucking air out of a hose.

    Any word on what “Plastic Fantastic” he lost?

  20. Without the whole story, hard to determine who was most at fault.

    Young knocked old guy (looks like he was attempting a blindside punch) and then kicked/stomped him after he fell.

    Old pulls gun. Okay. Advances toward young guy. Probably not the best move. Looked like he fired when they grappled….maybe not.

    From the clip only – if he had drawn and shot the young guy from the ground, he’d be in better shape legally.

    Probably never hear the whole story as most of these scenarios get initial play cause they are provocative. Often not so provocative when the whole story comes out.

    Number one take home – don’t turn your back when you’re arguing with someone.

  21. No mention of what the original altercation was about. BUt let’s face it the youg guy was a bully beating up and kicking little old fat guy. He was lucky he did not get shot for his trouble. It may well have been the wrong reasion for going for your handgun but that young bully would still have been on the way to the morgue. And I doubt that the ‘fat little guy’ being kicked in the gut’s would have caught more than a few months if that
    Even I as a very’ very strong supporter of Draconian gun control measures have some sympathy for a fat little guy being kicked in the nuts by a bullying out of control teenager.

    • @Albert L J Hall

      “Even I as a very’ very strong supporter of Draconian gun control measures have some sympathy for a fat little guy being kicked in the nuts by a bullying out of control teenager.”

      How odd. You have sympathy for the old guy while he was being attacked, but have no sympathy for the millions each year who are forced to defend themselves with fire arms and would rather they die than have the firearms means of defense.

      You are not only a liar – you are among one of the worst kind of liars, the hypocrite liar.

  22. The man with the firearm was arrested and charged with Aggravated Assault (assault while using or exhibiting a deadly weapon). Under Texas law, he would have been justified in using deadly force only if a person in his shoes would have reasonably believe that it was necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury. In this case, that imminent threat did not exist since the other man was unarmed and was not inflicting, or attempting to inflict serious bodily injury (injury that inflicts permanent impairment of some type).

    Lesson to be learned: There are very real potential consequence to carrying a firearm. Those consequences can last a lifetime.

    • “There are very real potential consequence to carrying a firearm. Those consequences can last a lifetime“

      With ‘constitutional carry’ and 18-year-old lawful purchase spreading across the United States, there soon will be many people learning more than they want to know about the criminal justice system.

      Of course, most on this list maintain that they should not be required to have any sort of training or education about their rights and responsibilities.

      I just hope your friends and family won’t be their victims.

      • MajorStupidity,

        Again, WHY do you find it necessary to LIE, constantly??? Pro tip: Any argument fails, logically, rhetorically, and persuasively, when presented with an OBVIOUS lie. Just sayin’.

        Every commenter I’ve seen on this forum who argued against “mandatory training” as a requirement for a CCW has been clear that they either don’t approve of the quality of the mandatory training (which is, uniformly, crap), or don’t accept that the government has the right to mandate such training for exercise of a constitutional (and INHERENT) right. Myself, I believe both of those arguments.

        But nearly everyone who comments on this forum believes training is necessary and important. Just not crappy training, mandated by an incompetent government (with no authority to do so). The distinction would be obvious to anyone other than a Leftist/fascist, lying moron.

        Oh, I guess that’s why you missed the point entirely, innit?

        • To our forum madman The Lamp that went out in his head.

          The only Major Stupidity is you, the Lamp that went out in his head.

          I doubt if more than 10% of the Far Right Neanderthals that comment on this forum are for mandatory training and they say so every time they post. The only liar is you Lamp that went out in his head.

          Hopefully the ATF is watching you as you are not sane enough to be permitted to own a deadly weapon.

      • Well thank you for your kind concern about my friends and my family. I can tell how genuine it is. It’s clearly not some fake concern you’re hoping to make yourself look more reasonable. You have a long history of such kind remarks, it’s pretty obvious how real and kind you are to people who disagree with you politically.

        The good news is that there are several states with YEARS of Constitutional Carry that we can look at to see if the rivers run red with blood. They don’t, there has never been some massive spike in crime associated with Constitutional Carry. My friends and family down here in Texas are no less safe than they were a couple of years ago.

        • Exactly.

          We have plenty of examples to go on to know what will happen. First of all, Vermont has never issued permits, and they’re fine. Second, there are states that do issue permits that don’t have any training requirements. My home state of Washington is one; Pennsylvania is another. There’s no giant difference between the experience of such states and states that require training. Finally, it’s not like Texas is the first state to go from requiring a permit to Constitutional Carry.

          Things will be fine.

Comments are closed.