OP
vigil617
US Veteran
Thanks, guys, for your opinions and observations on this.
For sure, plenty of stupid to go around when these two vehicles crossed paths.
A couple of observations related to the handgun in this incident:
1. It's not clear from the video, but apparently the wife pointed the pistol at the two younger men, probably before she becomes visible on the left side of the picture. She was charged with two counts of assault by pointing a weapon. Notice how the two assailants broke off the attack about that same time? Even if it worked for her, though, she wasn't legally justified in introducing the pistol into the situation at that point, since her husband (just my opinion) was not in imminent danger of death or serious physical injury at that particular moment. If she pointed the gun at them, as a threat to get them to stop hitting her husband, she has to accept the consequences of being charged as she was.
2. It's dangerous to be a Good Samaritan in a situation that you don't witness from the start. Imagine if you had walked up on that fight, one guy getting whaled on by two, and you not knowing he had started it by punching the driver. With the fight still at the "fists only" stage, escalating it by introducing a firearm into the equation isn't legally justified. And if you did, all of a sudden you are paired up with the bozo who had cornered the other two in a driveway, approached them threateningly, punched one through the open window, and was in the process of getting his "payback".
On the other hand, if another minute had gone by, the two had the other on the ground and were starting to pound his head into the concrete while he was defenseless, at THAT point, intervention with a higher level of violence would be justified. Point is, a matter of a few seconds can make all the difference.
3. Handing a loaded weapon to someone whose adrenaline is already off the scale, first from anger, then from the fight, was like handing a match to a guy holding a leaky five-gallon gasoline can. Terrible, terrible idea. By that point, the two assailants had stopped the assault, the "victim" was relatively unhurt, and what had been bad enough was for all practical matters over. From that point, though, things headed south again in a hurry.
4. Shooting up the assailants' truck (not shown in the video; it happened a few minutes later) was stupid of a whole other order of magnitude. One of the worst choices on an afternoon full of them.
I hope, once this all shakes out, that it turns out the guy with the gun wasn't a CC permit holder, maybe wasn't even supposed to own a gun, and will get smacked hard in court for the example it will provide to the other yahoos out there just like him. They all give those of us who try to be responsible CC'ers and pistol owners a black eye. No pun intended.
I'll keep a lookout in the coming months on how this plays out in the courts, and let you know.
For sure, plenty of stupid to go around when these two vehicles crossed paths.
A couple of observations related to the handgun in this incident:
1. It's not clear from the video, but apparently the wife pointed the pistol at the two younger men, probably before she becomes visible on the left side of the picture. She was charged with two counts of assault by pointing a weapon. Notice how the two assailants broke off the attack about that same time? Even if it worked for her, though, she wasn't legally justified in introducing the pistol into the situation at that point, since her husband (just my opinion) was not in imminent danger of death or serious physical injury at that particular moment. If she pointed the gun at them, as a threat to get them to stop hitting her husband, she has to accept the consequences of being charged as she was.
2. It's dangerous to be a Good Samaritan in a situation that you don't witness from the start. Imagine if you had walked up on that fight, one guy getting whaled on by two, and you not knowing he had started it by punching the driver. With the fight still at the "fists only" stage, escalating it by introducing a firearm into the equation isn't legally justified. And if you did, all of a sudden you are paired up with the bozo who had cornered the other two in a driveway, approached them threateningly, punched one through the open window, and was in the process of getting his "payback".
On the other hand, if another minute had gone by, the two had the other on the ground and were starting to pound his head into the concrete while he was defenseless, at THAT point, intervention with a higher level of violence would be justified. Point is, a matter of a few seconds can make all the difference.
3. Handing a loaded weapon to someone whose adrenaline is already off the scale, first from anger, then from the fight, was like handing a match to a guy holding a leaky five-gallon gasoline can. Terrible, terrible idea. By that point, the two assailants had stopped the assault, the "victim" was relatively unhurt, and what had been bad enough was for all practical matters over. From that point, though, things headed south again in a hurry.
4. Shooting up the assailants' truck (not shown in the video; it happened a few minutes later) was stupid of a whole other order of magnitude. One of the worst choices on an afternoon full of them.
I hope, once this all shakes out, that it turns out the guy with the gun wasn't a CC permit holder, maybe wasn't even supposed to own a gun, and will get smacked hard in court for the example it will provide to the other yahoos out there just like him. They all give those of us who try to be responsible CC'ers and pistol owners a black eye. No pun intended.
I'll keep a lookout in the coming months on how this plays out in the courts, and let you know.
