Hi /k/ I just came back from a late outing where I got into an altercation. Some young idiot, a mexican machismo type, threatening to assault me because I said his GF was an idiot. We had a little standoff, he said something gay like, "Did you just call my girlfriend an idiot?" And started bearing down in me like he was going to hit me. The female is screaming in the background, "punch him, punch him! wreck that motherfricker!" Etc.
We were in a fairly isolated location. It was a familiar area but some new people acting out. I never brandished my weapon, I didn't even reach for it. I never said I was armed. After a few moments of staring each other down, I said "If you try, you will die. It's not worth it." Luckily he backed off. He might have assumed I was armed or he might have just backed down in prudence I'm not really sure.
I'm uncertain if I handled that correctly or what the ideal response was supposed to be. My conviction at the time was 100%. If he attacked, I was ready to use deadly force. Sincerely curious to hear other experiences that are similar where you were armed but didn't brandish.
I know this will probably get a lot of troll responses but I'm very sincere, I would like to hear your stories and constructive criticism even if harsh.
>i did stupid shit and nearly got wrecked for it
>can i shoot them
Stop doing stupid shit. Stop calling random people idiots. Stop harassing the partners of random men. Stop doing all of this, especially, if you're armed.
I don't think it's particularly relevant but she was completely out of control screaming at everybody, likely high. It's honestly the least relevant factor in the situation because the exact same situation could arise without the screaming woman. Many of these guys are just looking for an excuse to get in a fight and many of their women are encouraging it because they get off on it.
Yeah, don't care. Stop doing stupid shit.
So what would you have done? You would have apologized and asked for permission to lick his boots?
nta
just dont get involved in stupid shit with untermenschen.
wow you definitely showed youre a strong and a real man by "standing" up for yourself by wanting to teach some mullok Hispanic some manners and risk getting fricking knifed over it.
get your priorities straight
Saying "don't get into that situation to begin with" is a cop out answer from people who don't ever leave their house.
>That's what you get for going outside
Really?
you have been given advice.
take it or leave it
Dumb advice from airsoft warriors. Should have asked when American are awake.
Okay, keep doing what you’re doing then. Draw your gun and shoot next time if you want to. You’re the main character after all, so there’s no way that your use of deadly force will possibly result in negative consequences for you.
It's being left.
The point is that you don’t need to be I situations where you only have bad choices left to make. It’s not the literal meaning of the sentence.
Figures for a tard that wants to go around and shoot people. Zero reading comprehension
This is like some infantile version of the no true Scotsman fallacy, whatever you say the answer is just don't do that
>my car got a flat tire what should I do?
don't get a flat tire to begin with
>I'm behind on my taxes what should I do?
make sure you never get behind on your taxes
>I have cancer what should I do?
try not to get cancer in the first place, idiot.
Are there actual grown men left on this board, or do people consider these answers reasonable?
>drive on a nail
>can I shoot the nail
>don’t file taxes
>can I shoot the tax
>inhale carcinagens
>can I shoot the cancer
See how none of these are the result of an act of god? You put yourself in that shitty situation
>I don't have to deal with this problem because I just stay home under a blanket with my lights off and avoid social interactions
This is such a dumb line of thinking, I don't know how I'm expected to take this seriously.
I mean, the consequences are that he could get shot to death. He might have made that calculation just the same way he would have if a cop was there. What's the point of carrying if you can't prevent your face from being bashed in? What's the point of stand-your-ground laws if you can't defend yourself from some violent beaner?
there's some mental math that goes on too, namely "what are the chances this guy has a gun?" black or mexican? might have a gun, depending on if they look like a gangbanger or cholo. the more ghetto they look, the higher the chances are. white guy? depends on " does he look like a redneck." most people in america are not carrying.
This is now the 3rd time I have to try to explain to you the difference of leaving your home and volunteering to go to a war zone. Are you smart enough to know you are stupid?
Consequences don’t reduce violent spur of the moment crimes. This is bullshit ideology invented by conservative. It has no basis in reality.
You are doing well. Very consistent characterization. I didn’t know morons understood people well enough to pull off a character like this
>there is zero in-between being a complete shut in and starting fights by insulting random women
>try not to get cancer
Cancers are the result of your genetics being more proned to it. You can reduce the risk factors, but it will still potentially develop
You are an idiot. Stop instigating shit. You can go outside and NOT start fights with people. You know, like a responsible adult.
You idiot.
Yeah apologies are a good way to deescalate, if you aren’t mature enough to know this then perhaps shoot yoruself
Apologies can be a good way to deescalate sure, but if youre dealing with a moron apologizing is almost a show of weakness, which will amp them up and then try to further attempt to publicly dominate. Bet you're a euro though
nta but ultimately there is no one formula just gotta read the situation. you can non-apology apologize, say it's annoying but also they can do whatever and move to leave, if the other guy is just bluster he'll make some noise then stick with his gf and situation over. whereas if he comes after you thats now a totally different situation. also even if you do need to use force having more space is good anyway.
Christ teaches us to forgive and turn the other cheek. If apology causes him to then escalate you have an easier time stating how you tried deescalation but it was not enough. Your goal should always be to deescalate as much as possible, not find reasons to shoot degens when you can. If you fit in the latter please do us all a favor and sell your guns.
>Christ teaches us to forgive and turn the other cheek
In the very specific circumstance of being alone and surrounded in foreign territory.
He also tells us to beat people for disgracing God's temples and to drown pedophiles.
Funny because 2000 years of christian scholars say the opposite.
No they don't, you're just parroting Vatican 2 nonsense. Read the bible, sola scriptura.
name one
If the other guy is going around assaulting random people who call his idiot gf an idiot, and de-escalation means he DOESN'T get shot, then I don't see a need to de-escalate. It's not about self-defense at that point (tho you're better off arguing that one in court) - it's pest control.
>no see, its actually my CIVIC DUTY to kill this guy i want to kill.
>im not a psychopath, im actually a based citizen guy
Just don’t argue with morons IRL
>equivocating de-escalation with being a bootlicker
I was gonna give you the benefit of the doubt before, but no you're a dumbshit idiot yourself and you shouldn't be armed. Your entire complaint about the little guy getting up in your business was him being machismo, but atleast he was defending his woman (even if she didn't deserve it). And you think it's weak to "lose face" when you put yourself in that situation?
>then resorting to projection
Yeah the yelling mexican moron and her idiot boyfriend are in the right. Reading the OP I was supportive of you as the situation was resolved without negative incident, but your replies to comments in this thread are atrocious and makes me seem to think you made the thread just to get pats on the back for being a bad-ass, which you didn't get so now are lashing out like the little insecure mexican dude you encountered.
You think "living in a bad neighborhood" is some flex? That's bad decisions on your part, or calculated risks (cheap housing costs to build up savings). You'd expect people living in such a place to be smart enough to keep their head down until they can improve their lot, not get into chest-thumping face-saving nonsense encounters that you then expect people online to congratulate you for.
>So what would you have done?
nothing. you should have done nothing. this is why people in NYC don't pay attention or give any attention to crazy people on the subway.
It's also why they routinely get murdered
by those same people.
They relaxed. Never relax. But avoid trouble.
Square up and fight? How many fights you been in pussy boi?
You’re a white man (hopefully) with a gun, not a Black person with a “nine”. Act like it
You are the stupid one.
Nta, but you did instigate the altercation. You could have avoided the situation but you caused the tension and the conflict.
>inb4 well what would you have done
I would not have been the dickhead calling some spicwoman an idiot for doing standard spicwoman things. You think you're an upstanding guy with steely virtues and you "just had to" say something, but you didn't have to. You chose to instigate, and if you had pulled your weapon you would have had an almost impossible task in proving self defense.
>t. defense lawyer
Also
>If you try, you will die. It's not worth it."
Holy mother of cringe. You did not say this. Your common man hero fantasy is embarrassing.
You are not a lawyer lmao and have no idea what you're talking about
You don't even know what state OP is in
>because I said his GF was an idiot
Well that's because you're a moron. Don't engage with crazy people. Don't interact with crazy people.
>but she was completely out of control screaming at everybody
And this is the person you're stupid enough to think you can change the behavior of? By insulting them openly? I know you're feeling a little bit of brass confidence with that little pea shooter on your hip, stop trying to act tough. Break the habit, you're going to get killed.
>Saying "don't get into that situation to begin with" is a cop out answer from people who don't ever leave their house.
No it's an answer from people who get back to their house. What do you think the survival rate is on every moron who says "I'm gonna go out and interact with every crazy person I see, especially if they're screaming at strangers, and then insult them"
>Are there actual grown men left on this board
Oh I get it, you've never felt tough in your entire life until you got a gun. Now, you feel the power oozing from your very voice, and feel like the world should bend to your version of order because you're the Gun Guy now, most powerful human in the entire room. Get the frick over your power fantasies, OP. Don't let your pistol get you killed, stop insulting strangers just because you have what you think is the mother of all safety nets. That's literal Black person behavior.
>When the Black person is trying to attack you, it's your fault.
Imagine believing this.
>Go out and provoke Black person to attack you
>he was clearly attacking me, I was just defending myself.
Retare
Actually it is the most important detail in this story because it'll decide if you were in the wrong or not but your insistence on minimizing it has not gone unnoticed.
>Actually it is the most important detail in this story because it'll decide if you were in the wrong or not
No, it literally won't, not in the United States anyway. "Please be quiet" then "wow you're an idiot" doesn't mean someone then gets to assault you.
>but your insistence on minimizing it has not gone unnoticed.
Your insistence on blowing it up has not gone unnoticed either, and is another common pattern on /k/. There's way too much binary here, where yeah there are morons who just go "hurr shoot dem heheh" but then also those who go the opposite and pretend it's equivalent to raping their kid.
So, you went up to this person, on your own, who was no threat to you, and decided you were going to start an altercation with her?
The more you need to post justifying what you did the less capable you are of accepting you did anything wrong. Grow up. You're not armed with a gun to call dumb women stupid and fight their men. She's not hurting anyone by yelling like an idiot.
fpbp
Depending on jurisdiction, it can be hard to claim self defense if you do anything to instigate the altercation
>Depending on jurisdiction, it can be hard to claim self defense if you do anything to instigate the altercation
Do you have a source or any kind of background for this claim? Because as far as I know, if somebody attacks you it's basically game over. Assaults are considered to be deadly force and you can defend with proportional force.
Look up "fighting words and self defense". Other states might use a different phrase than "fighting words". Generally you can't bait someone in to assaulting you so you can shoot them.
If you were to say, call a black person the N word and then they assaulted you, you can't just shoot them. You started the encounter, so you're expected to leave in that circumstance, or at least try to leave. If you've disengaged from the fight but are pursued and assaulted, you may have reclaimed the right to claim self defense. Some places require you to state to the attacker that you don't want the fight you initiated and you are backing down.
Also things will swing in your favor again if you say, called a black person the N word and then that black person pulls at a gun and points it at you. Yeah you started the encounter, but they went to deadly force and did not respond proportionally.
Again there is a lot of "may" and "ifs" in this kind of thing. It's messy and will never look good for you if you baited someone in to attacking you. The moment you are the initiator in an encounter, your right to claim self defense becomes a massive grey area and you're likely going to get charged and have to go through a lengthy and expensive court battle even if you do ultimately get off.
I hear you. Not sure if this is relevant but I'm in a stand your ground state.
I don't think calling someone, especially a third party, an idiot would rise to the level of fighting words or instigation. Fighting words have to be unambiguously violent and threatening. If I'm saying it's not worth it, and he starts attacking me, if you don't allow for self-defense the legal standard would be sitting there and letting somebody pummel you to death. that doesn't make any sense especially in a stand your ground state.
If people feel like they can assault others because somebody made fun of their girlfriend, we are in really bad shape.
Yes the law is just a series of words if you recite the magic incantation correctly then you’ll just get off.
So far we’ve established that you have zero reading comprehension and no understanding of nuance. What’s next?
>I don't think calling someone, especially a third party, an idiot would rise to the level of fighting words or instigation.
Your prosecutor might not care what you think and make the decision himself that it is fighting words. He may be wrong about that, but you're going to have to settle that in court and have a jury decide.
The bottom line is if that you started a negative encounter someone, you should not invoke stand your ground even if you're in a stand your ground state. You should be de-escalating and even retreating, and if you are pursued and have no choice then you should defend yourself.
>If people feel like they can assault others because somebody made fun of their girlfriend, we are in really bad shape
people 100% do feel that way, but more because they think they're justified (at least in the eyes of the woman, who is what matters to them at that time) and because they don't think anything will happen to them because there are no authority figures around to do something about it. if a cop was around, they sure as frick wouldn't come anywhere near actually throwing a punch no matter what was said.
>if a cop was around, they sure as frick wouldn't come anywhere near actually throwing a punch
This is a really good point. If a cop was there, it wouldn't be a question who was in the wrong. Why would it be different if the cop was removed?
people tend to like not being in jail. if someone is going to do something bad, it helps a lot to make sure there's not a cop around.
Frankly, I don't care about being in jail I care about being in prison. If someone starts punching you in the face and you shoot them and kill them, it would be kind of absurd not to expect to spend some time in jail. But being convicted of murder and sent to prison is a different story.
my comment was more about the guy punching you for saying mean words. while there definitely are people who would be fine getting cuffed if it meant he defended m'lady's honor, most people would not find it a good trade, and thus, wouldn't punch you just for words if there was a cop around. without a cop around, he could punch you and run off and wouldn't face any consequences
>If people feel like they can assault others because somebody made fun of their girlfriend, we are in really bad shape.
People have literally always felt this way The Trojan war was started over men getting defensive about a woman.
>The Trojan war was started over men getting defensive about a woman
Helen was fricking kidnapped(or eloped), a bit different than a mild insult
>I don't think calling someone, especially a third party, an idiot would rise to the level of fighting words or instigation
It does you moron. You helped create the situation.
No moron. If you insult someone’s father, that’s fighting words. If you call a hetero man a homosexual, those are fighting words.
Did you not have a dad? Did you never get in any fights? How sheltered and pathetic are you?
>If you were to say, call a black person the N word and then they assaulted you, you can't just shoot them
Being called a Black person is not a legal justification for violence. There is no state in the Union where someone legally obliged to take a beating because they called someone else a mean word. There would need to be a lot more evidence of intent to prove they baited someone into a fight to kill them, which probably isn't going to exist from a random encounter like OPs.
Still, the best thing to do when you see people acting trashy is to avoid them. These encounters are the same thing as finding poop on the sidewalk; it's easier to walk around it than deal with stepping in it.
>best thing to do is to avoid them
This is easy enough to say but I'm not sure if you really processed it as you typed it. Obviously most people would avoid Black person behavior by whatever name you want to call it. Do you not realize how much time and effort we spend every day trying to avoid the shit. It's fricking everywhere. It's literally unavoidable. You're trying to say the most obvious answer is this impossible fantasy that we're all dreaming about and trying hard to accomplish.
Sure it's easy enough to avoid stepping in shit but what if that one pile of shit is actually a thousand piles of shit and they're all following you around wherever you go?
Yes. Let's go out of our way to go where we know there will be drunk and high Mexicans. Great way to spend an evening.
Name for me a place where there are not drunk mexicans or Black folk chimping out. I'll wait.
My man, in the OP it was as easy as not being the guy who called out the girlfriends behavior. In an already charged situation you don't call attention to yourself like that. I've been around lots of situations like that, this isn't theoretical for me. There is a difference between a person targeting you specifically, and an out of control person waiting for someone to take up their challenge. Most of the time when you find yourself around drunks, druggies, or crazy people you can see what narrative they're trying to create and all you have to do is not play the part they're looking for.
See
See
>Lemme just talk shit loud enough for everyone to here.
>It's cool, I do whatever I want without consequences because I CCW.
Ya you'd need to do more then that, like make a bunch of PrepHole posts as a tripgay about how you intend to go to BLM riots to bait people into assaulting you so you can shoot them. Then explain to the court what a e-girl is.
>Being called a Black person is not a legal justification for violence.
Tell that to your prosecutor after you've been charged and are sitting in a jail cell waiting for your court date.
Not him but it's the idea of a burglar defending himself against a homeowner who caught him breaking in. He can't claim self defense because he was never supposed to be there at all. The fact he put himself in that situation willingly for whatever reason invalidates his claim of defending himself from harm
>Assaults are considered to be deadly force
Holy shit no they’re not moron
Read a fricking book on the topic before carrying a gun in public, that’s not how it works at all.
Best answer. Reading this I could only think "maybe don't be an idiot in the first place and you wouldn't be here."
moronic post, if you're still here OP this is total bullshit. Calling someone an idiot is not fricking fighting words, not instigation, and doesn't justify someone committing assault. That said
For something like that if you're out in public it doesn't hurt to back away, facing him, being calm and try to defuse it. If he comes after you though yeah at that point you defend yourself. But don't get swallowed in your own pride either. tl;dr:
>act to start as if you DON'T have a gun
Like, if being armed is making you do something you wouldn't otherwise, then you should reassess. If you were unarmed and would have retreated, you should do that armed as step 1 too. Being armed just gives you a fallback if that doesn't work you wouldn't have had otherwise.
This is all different if it's your own property, you have family there, or you don't have a retreat path. But if it's just you alone out in public and someone starts acting up deescalation should always be the first effort.
>Calling someone an idiot is not fricking fighting words, not instigation, and doesn't justify someone committing assault. That said
Lots of shit that doesn't justify getting your ass kicked will get your ass kicked anyway. Mind your own business and move on. Some screaming beaner chick having a tantrum in public isn't your problem, its the employees and police's peoblem. Stop acting like having a CCW makes you some fricking hall monitor moron I fricking hate people like you
>Lots of shit that doesn't justify getting your ass kicked will get your ass kicked anyway
Lots of actions that will let you get away with committing assault vs unarmed people will get you killed vs armed people. Suck up the criticism you earned for being a raging homosexual and move on. We live in a civilized society and what you do in public is everyone's problem. I fricking hate people like you and I hope you die anon.
>instigating
OP didn't do any instigating. Go back to Mexico.
> threatening to assault me because I said his GF was an idiot.
Dumbass
>hurr i "kick ur ass" for being meanie poopie head to my loud obnoxious girlfriend
>punching people totally isn't assault
No, it's assault. You're saying we should just tolerate getting assaulted without justification. Well, we don't.
Society went straight into the shitter when people began to think they could put their hands on each other without getting shot.
The counties of the United States with the highest frequency of open carry have the least violent crime and always have.
The bloodiest Old West boom towns with 90% open carry were safer per capita than any us city today.
Correlation does not equal causation.
I have this funny image in my min of a man desperately trying to explain that correlation is not causation while a group of feral Black folk are kicking his teeth out.
He didn’t say correlation equals causation, but two factors that are causally linked with also be correlated. It is a fact that those that death by gunshot wound and being shot are correlated.
>t. OP
>Calling someone an idiot is not fricking fighting words
>Calling someone's girlfriend an idiot is not fighting words
Absolutely vox-tier response. Dawg, how are you even here? Holy shit, your whole post, absolutely limpwristed to the max, how did you even find this board? East Coast or Euro?
Get someone to call you an idiot then attack them and see how it goes
idiot
East Coast for sure. Everyone loves to talk shit, but nobody likes consequences lmao.
You've never been in a fight that wasn't a pathetic drunken uncoordinated shitshow
Sneed. Ten years ago I had to kick some dudes ass, in front of his house, over moronic female drama, on his doorstep, BECAUSE I PROVOKED HIM. I should not have white knighted for a b***h, I should've walked away, but I let moronation get the best of me. Had he had a knife or a gun, I'd be dead lmao.
Moral of the story? Don't talk shit behind another person's back that you wouldn't say to their face, and don't do things to others that you wouldn't want done to you.
>Moral of the story? Don't talk shit behind another person's back that you wouldn't say to their face, and don't do things to others that you wouldn't want done to you
This is a pure, unadulterated, high-test white trash mentality. It isn't honorable to fight somebody for things they say, it isn't impressive to kick somebody's ass over petty insults, and it is a damn shame that people like you are able to walk around thinking you have some sort of moral superiority; it's worse yet that people like you are allowed to breed. People with your mentality are bottom feeders who'll never get ahead& don't even comprehend know how far behind they're
>Not understanding the Southern honor culture
They will never adapt beyond their highland ways.
>Calling someone an idiot is not fricking fighting words
idiot
/thread
You would have never dare to insult the roastie if you didn't have a gun on you
TPBP, mind your damn business and stop instigating. Especially when armed.
You're a homosexual. Calling someone an idiot is not and never has been justification for assault. If they attacked OP he would have been justified in defending himself.
First post is always the best post. OP, play stupid games, win stupid prizes
You give gun owners a bad name.
I agree to an extent. But being a dumbass does not magically remove your right to defend yourself. If it did pic related would be rotting in prison.
You sound like a Black person or Hispanic. If you try to assault someone for calling you an idiot you deserve to be shot dead in the street like the rabid dog you are.
/thread
you are the butthole OP, pride to a man in front of his woman will have him risk his life to defend her honor
mind your own business next time
You will get responses from two types of people here. The 'civilized' and the 'law of the jungle' types.
The former will think you are in the wrong for calling her an idiot, even if she was being one and the BF is in the wrong for defending her honor.
The latter would have called you a cuck for having your day/hour disturbed/ruined by some high degen and shutting up and taking it without so much as a word. They would also have called the BF a cuck for letting some random guy insult his woman.
The solution:
Pic related, no matter where you lie between these two.
Pull out the can the moment he shows aggression and spray him when he steps towards you and end the situation, don't have it on your conscience forever or waste time in court.
>threat escalated
You sprayed him, told him to stop, he didn't stop, clearly very pissed, looks much better to a jury, on video, in the headlines, everywhere.
I reccomend carrying 2-3 of the smallest bottles because you can encounter packs and 12 secs of total spraytime (with dropping pressure towwards the end) is not enough to spray liberally/comfortably. Maybe have 1 spray and 1 stream bottle specifically for outdoor situations. Frick, put one (well, at least one- maybe a couple for your friends) in your car.
a bit autistic, but yes, pepper spray is very underrated by gun people. I think I already said it ITT, but if you’re carrying a gun, you should 100% also have pepper spray for situations exactly like this. Pepper spray is perfectly legal in a situation like this and if was used and ended the confrontation, the cops probably wouldn’t even need to be called.
Anon, a lot of people are going to say shit like this throughout your life. Be aware that, throughout human history, it has been normal to call stupid people stupid. It has also been normal to get into deadly altercations. Live your life how you see fit, I closing calling dumb prostitutes stupid for screaming.
The "avoid all conflict" crowd is full of pussies that frankly only live in a decent society because better men went headfirst into conflict.
Also I'm gay
>fairly isolated location
Don't go out of doors. Only in. Outside is dangerous and people are stupid. BMW drivers are the rudest, followed by Tesla drivers and lifted trucks. A have a Boker automatic knife, it's really nice.
See also: every make/model of shitbox SUV, Jeepgays, musclegays, RaNgE RoVeRs, street bikers
You couldn't have just walked away? Also, what state are you in, friend?
Keep escalating big man show that Mexican who’s the boss
>mudskin
shoulda shot him and his troony girlfriend just for inconveniencing you :^)
Thank god the Americans are finally awake now we can stip reading all these replies like...
>have you tried cutting your dick off yet? That always worked for me
What if he shot first for being inconvenienced by OP? It's called Mexican carry for a reason
1. Avoid confrontation.
2. Yes. Do not pull the pistol until you are ready to kill.
3.Shoot, scoot, shut up.
It's revealing how few people here have ever actually lived in a bad neighborhood.
>It's revealing how few people here have ever actually lived in a bad neighborhood.
This is fair, and it's kind of the inverse of the more normal complaint where it's revealing how many people think of things purely in city terms. But by the same token yeah I've heard there are places where if you look like a weak easy mark it will invite more trouble then non-escalatory SYG. So I guess ultimately there is no formula vs knowing how to think and assessing your local environment.
>Well that's because you're a moron. Don't engage with crazy people. Don't interact with crazy people.
People are human though anon, and do in fact have the right to expect others to be adults as well. If someone loses their temper briefly and says a loud irritating person is being a bother, that's 100% protected A-OK and that person is expected to fricking deal with it. If they escalate sure try to avoid further conflict, but that doesn't make them justified in doing so.
>Break the habit, you're going to get killed.
No you fricking edgelord. It's probably not. Very few people get killed out of something like that or some simple mistake unless you live in an absolute shithole.
Also it's a touch amusing that you go on and on about about how much of a Serious Adult YOU are then say something so fricking dumb.
>People are human though anon, and do in fact have the right to expect others to be adults as well. If someone loses their temper briefly and says a loud irritating person is being a bother
This. What the other anons are suggesting is that, say, when Jack Doherty or some other c**tish "prankster" streamer gets in someone's face and they get annoyed and tell them to frick off, it's their fault rather than the c**ts.
I hope all those kick troll streamers who go around being c**ts get shot like that one homosexual did.
It's crazy how none of them learned anything from that incident, not even the moron who ended up with extra ventilation.
>It's crazy how none of them learned anything from that incident, not even the moron who ended up with extra ventilation.
I mean shit anon, they didn't learn anything from endless previous actual deaths. Like the morons trying to do ebin pictures/videos on top of mountains trying to get the perfect shot and literally stepping backwards straight off a couple hundred feet of vertical cliff. Whoops!
But they don't live in the real world and just brush it all off, I think something is broken for a lot of people, they've genuinely lost the capability to actually fully recognize physical reality. They all think it can't happen to them if they think about it at all. They all will blame anything but themselves and then sink right back into the social media skinner box. Nothing but death will stop them, and nothing at all will stop the rest since if one dies there are 1000 more rushing to fill in their place instantly and their feeds promptly get subsumed under new algorithmic engagement.
People certainly drive like they think they won't end up in a ditch or a twisted mess of flaming steel. I can't go more than two days without seeing someone learn this on my 30 mile commute in a semirural area.
>They all think it can't happen to them if they think about it at all.
That's kind of a symptom of being young and particularly young and stupid. Enlisted soldiers on their first tour never really believe that it could be them catching the bullet or stepping on the pressure plate, for example.
I mean of course, but normally if you survive, directly or indirectly (like you see a comrade in the same position catch it), you learn from it and that's part of growing up. Accumulate near misses.
What's broken/weird is people directly seeing, on video or even in person, this stuff, and then still continuing right on completely and perfectly unchanged. And continuing long after they're young, late 20s, 30s or 40s all doing mindblowingly dumb shit. Like, just not stopping and thinking. Ever. I saw this working in mountain rescue all the time, people just going out to hike 6000 ft+ without more than water and a power bar and some light clothes without so much as checking the weather forecast for that nasty storm coming in. Not teens, adults, or "adults" anyway, coming from the city. In perfectly good shape but just so stupid, and then it can put others at risk too.
I don't know. Just I can't help but feel like a lot of humans have gotten so ensconced in virtual and manufactured worlds that something has gotten lost, some basic instinct of there not being any do-overs and safety systems in some situations, no fence, no instant emergency services, whatever.
If we’re talking shot the YouTube prankster who got shot in the shopping mall a while back, that’s entirely different.
So iirc, the moron was the one doing the harassing while the delivery driver(?) was minding his business and one the situation started constantly tried to leave and tell the guy to leave him alone before he resorted to defending himself as the much bigger YouTuber kept closing in on him with his friends.
OP on the other hand arguably started the situation, even if the spicette was in fact being obnoxious and moronic. Could he have gotten off with self defense if the Hispanic decided to keep escalating? With a good lawyer, yeah. But you’re gambling with years of your life behind bars so try to minimize the amount of dumb situations you get yourself into and then try to get out of the ones you do find yourself in without resorting to violence unless you need to
Ignore me. My reading comprehension was temporarily fricked and now I can’t delete the post
Love people who buy and carry firearms, yet have no idea what they are and are not allowed to do with em.
Fricking cringe.
>After a few moments of staring each other down, I said "If you try, you will die. It's not worth it."
And then everyone clapped.
lulz
Just mind your own business.
are there any more responses from people who don't choke on Black person dick?
You seem to think a lot about Black person dick, anon. Almost as if you’re subconsciously obsessing over it. Curious.
>I need my validation!!
You don't deserve any, OP
haha imagine this actually happening
>"If-f-f-f you t-t-try. IF YOU T-TRY, you will die, m-man. It's n-n-not worth it."
> reaches for gun
> gets knocked out
> goes to prison for 10 years
What are the gun laws in your state?
Are you allowed to use if threatened? How do you prove this to the law?
>mexican machismo type
you were the fricking one insulting his woman lmao, wtf is wrong with you
Wow humans really are chimps aren't they
>instigating
>fighting words
If the woman was screaming for the man to attack, and the man is bearing down on someone, it's much more likely that the mexicans would be considered to have used fighting words. It's pretty ridiculous that so many people here think calling somebody an idiot would rise to the level of fighting words while ignoring literal textbook example of fighting words.
>retreating vs stand your ground
>deescalate
You should be really careful before giving advice to retreat or cower, it can encourage more of the aggressive behavior by emboldening the would be attacker, in many cases it practically guarantees that you'll get jumped later or get a brick to the back of the head when you're not looking. You've basically painted a target on your back.
>acting differently when armed
This sounds good on paper, it feels like the right thing to say, but ultimately it's a hollow platitude. If you're going to behave the exact same armed or unarmed, then what's the point of arming yourself? I think a better mindset is to assume everybody is armed at all times, that is after all the origin of the idea of a "polite society". People are not kind and respectful to each other out of some kind of cosmic benevolence, but out of the visceral understanding that any of these men have the capacity to end you.
>Started bearing down in me
What the frick do you mean? Every mexican I've met is a little manlet. Are you like 5'3"?
I’ve ceased giving a shit about the consequences of “brandishing a firearm”, and have subsequently started flashing that fricker at every single homosexual that approaches me in that manner. They won’t report it to the police most of the time, and when they do, the cops believe me over them because I’m more articulated and educated (I literally dropped out of high school lmao)
To add to this, when police ask me if I’ve brandished my firearm, I tell them “no, however I did make that individual aware that I do have a concealed carry permit, and would advise them on using any physical force against me, for if I am in fear of my life I will defend it with any means necessary and at-hand”
>Wake up in hospital
>Broken neck
>May never walk again
>"Well at least he didn't brandish his firearm"
I mean, you make a good point. In one scenario you wake up dead, in another scenario you get into some vague, minor legal trouble for brandishing.
Lately I have found myself wondering why people consider concealed carry to be the default in places that allow open carry. It seems like a safe assumption that open carry would be much more effective at preventing people from fricking with you. I live in a constitutional carry state and I've started to see a lot more people open carry in the last few years. I kind of like this trend.
>It seems like a safe assumption that open carry would be much more effective at preventing people from fricking with you
Hear me out on this one. Sometimes the strongest looking guy gets picked on because people think they can beat him up and that usually includes a few drinks
Imagine they see your gun and also they're not completely sober
I get what you're saying, but you have to acknowledge that those situations are extreme outliers that would be rapidly weeded out if open carry was the norm.
Forest from the trees. Thinking not from a single independent scenario, but from an overall effect over the long term. Anybody who behaved this way in an open carry society would have a very short lifespan and after a few years they wouldn't exist anymore.
The presence of a firearm shouldn’t always be presented openly, so to speak. Black folk will try to take it from you or fight you, like the other anon said. It’s better to surprise the homosexual
>because I’m autistic
ftfy
I’m not autistic, I’m just more articulated than most, because I recognize that everything I say CAN and WILL be used against me in a court of law, so I’m precise. Not everyone is a pencil-eating moron like you.
Try looking at life without your autism tinted glasses
Also, this is good advice..you have to understand that, unless you're around a large group of people, the type of idiot to instigate a fight isn't going to call the cops if you brandish. Hell, if you started a fight and your opponent pulled a gun, would you call the cops? I wouldn't.
Nobody died nobody went to jail, I think you handled it ok. You seem like you have some self constrain and understanding of the consequences if you do have to draw your gun.
Honestly only advice is don’t even talk to coloreds if you can avoid it
I don't see anything wrong there in this isolated situation.
No one could ever prove you had a weapon. The threat was conditional upon the other party's actions, which would have been assault, and they can't prove you had any way to carry it out.
My recommendation is that you avoid the situation to begin with because if you did brandish in the face of a non-deadly force threat that both you and he instigated then you'd be turbofricked.
>non-deadly force threat
FYI assault is considered a deadly threat.
Only certain kinds anon.
There is a legal distinction, being punched one time is not carte blanche to pop some bastard.
Depends on the state legislation in most cases. Some places define assault as “deadly force.”
Ultimately, if indicted and it goes to trial, the jury is the finder of fact.
You can be assaulted by a punch or slap and they won't believe you were facing a deadly force threat, then you'll be convicted and spent life in a cage.
Proportionality is such an obvious part of any self-defense case that I'm kind of shocked anyone here is unfamiliar.
You are absolutely 100% wrong in this. If somebody assaults you there is no universe where you couldn't claim self-defense as a legal defense. I don't know where you guys get this shit from. In fact, you don't even have to be under attack, merely threatening posturing is enough to qualify for self-defense.
Remember this guy? Ended up being concluded as justified self-defense even though it was only words. Stop talking out of your ass.
>remember this anecdote
>anecdote
Yes, a singular instance that is not necessarily representative of a trend.
The legal system is extremely messy and if you'd spent more time observing it you'd know. Some shoots get indictmentd that should not, some don't get indictments that should. There are humans in control.
>anecdote
It’s called precedence
There is literally no precedence because no opinion was offered. It was never tried on the merits, for fricks sake learn how the judicial system operates.
The DA could still bring charges tomorrow, it's discretionary.
>precedence
precedent
and that's not how it works
>remember this event which was never charged and the legal merits never tested
DAs have absolute discretion, that shoot was bad UNLESS there was communication we're not privy to that justifies the deadly force. For example, if dumbass had talked about harming his ex-wife or children. The guy had a record of assaults.
The legal merits were tested and failed to even pass
prosecutorial discretion.
Yes, but likely not based exclusively from the video which is all we have. That shoot becomes completely reasonable by a simple change in facts such as: he made threats in text or verbally we're not privy to.
>It's not a good example but I can't explain why
This is sophistry. Anyway my point was, and remains, that a single punch is more than enough to justify use of deadly force. Many people have died or been crippled from getting punched just one time. And maybe it was only one punch because he got shot before he had the chance for the second.
Attorneys like to imagine themselves as people who deal in objective facts, but the truth is everything about legal interactions from the police officers decision to arrest to the DA's decision to prosecute to the judge's decision to allow self-defense as a legal defense down to the juries conclusions are completely subjective. The law is just a sloppy, often vague, inconsistent set of rules that some humans made up for other humans.
If somebody's punching a man in the face are you expecting him to do some kind of deep legal analysis on proportionality and eminence before he decides to shoot the guy? I mean give me a fricking break here.
Good luck with that theory. A punch is only deadly force sometimes and it will be up to a jury as to whether they believe your interpretation of events.
A fist fight is considered non-deadly force in the absence of verbal deadly threats or large size and capability differences. Not hard to convince a jury that a single punch to an elderly woman is deadly force, but a healthy 6' 200lbs man can likely take a punch.
You're trying to apply an absolute to all cases which does not fit and is EXTREMELY legally hazardous. A punch is not deadly force until it is.
>a single punch is more than enough to justify use of deadly force
In the vast majority of situauons in the vast manority of jurisdictions, this is not true
>Attorneys like to imagine themselves as people who deal in objective facts
I'm an attorney, I can tell you are not an attorney, nor do you have any substantive legal education. Attorneys deal in advocacy. The objective facts are often in contention and are ultimately just tools ised to advocate
>I'm an attorney
ok mr attorney, lets hear your nuanced hot take. does someone lose all their rights because they called a beaner's gf an idiot? if you're armed you should never leave your house?
First,
>should you lose ALL your rights
Everybody has rights in the US, even and especially people in prisons
>should someone lose all their rights because they called a beaner's gf an idiot?
No, that's just banter. Nothing wrong there. Depending on the state your in, and depending on what exactly you said, it could possibly be verbal assault, but that's unlikely.
>if you start a verbal altercation with someone by calling their girlfriend an idiot should you lose all your rights?
No, shouldn't lose your rights. But you've now instigated an altercation that can reasonably be expected to become physical. Instigators cannot claim self defense; that's widely accepted and deeply entrenched common law often encoded in statute as well.
You're now at the point where you've instigated, and the Hispanic has started responding by threatening and posturing. If you engage and provoke then he swings, you're both liable. If you try to disengage and he swings, he's liable and you can swing back. If you swing first obviously you're liable.
But here's the thing - you are armed with deadly force, you instigated the altercation. If the Hispanic swings on you, he is not using deadly force as defined in the vast manority of US jurisdictions. And in that vast majority, deadly force can only be used in a justified manner when it is in response to deadly force (unless you're a cop but hats a different thread). So now he real question, as a court would see it, is:
>Should you face criminal penalty, likely a felony charge and jail time, for provoking an altercation and then using disproportionate deadly force in response to a non deadly threat?
Most courts, basically all courts, would rule that yes, you should face criminal penalty.
Not sure why I wasted my time writing this out. I know that ignorant stubborn halfwits like you never change your opinion, because you have some sense of moral high ground that you feel supercedes all real authority
Checked. You cannot wade into a situation, escalate it, then claim self defense. Regardless, it's a high risk low reward move. Nothing to gain, and everything to lose.
>you instigated the altercation
Just to be clear, the mexican overhead me calling his gf an idiot, I wasn't talking to them, I was talking to a couple of people in bemusement about how wild she was acting. He walked over to my location maybe 10 feet away and started the posturing and his girlfriend followed him over trying to egg him on.
Ok, I am going to need some more info. Where did this happen? What was the setting?
I want to be a little careful about accidentally self doxing as don't know if it's very common setting. It was at a bonfire. Think of it like a campground type setting where people hang out with owners permission, except nobody is camping. Large open area maybe 1 to 1.5 acres, people wondering back and forth from their cars to the fire, people dropping off firewood, etc. Some people drinking, mostly beer, usually very chill. Mexican groups have started showing up there more and more often over last year or so. I really don't see what any of this matters.
Yeah, I know the bonfire scene. My point, and the point you would have to defend in court, is why did you knowingly take a firearm to a place where you know there would be drugs and alcohol? Were you drinking AT ALL?
In my state we can bring firearms to any place except a school a bar or a courthouse. If you excluded firearms from places that serve alcohol or places where people drink, you realize that would include almost all restaurants and almost all social functions. You might say it's irresponsible to show up to an event like this armed although I think it's just as reasonable to say that you're irresponsible for showing up to an event like this unarmed.
So you are going to tell the court that with forethought, you went to a place where you knew they would be drugs and alcohol, and had a high probability of violence? Knowing that, you went anyway prepared to shoot someone?
>high probability of violence
Well this is an interesting argument isn't it? Am I supposed to go to places with a high probability of violence unarmed? That's really how people think about this? Is this really a good argument?
>Yes Judge, I suspected the people there would be drunk, high, and violent, so I made sure I had my gun.
>You just couldn't stay home?
>Why would I? I already said I had my gun.
Do yourself a favor, look at your local court docket and see how many shooting cases are being heard. Sit in on the precedings and observer the arguments.
He already said he thought there could be trouble so he took a gun.
>He already said he thought there could be trouble so he took a gun.
Where was that? I don't see it.
Read this.
>Show up to an event like this armed.
Why? Expecting trouble?
>I suspected the people there would be drunk, high, and violent
But this isn't true. You've set up an imaginary argument and then you knocked it over. Now taking a smug victory lap.
>I suspected the people there would be drunk, high, and violent
Not true.
>so I made sure I had my gun
Not true.
>He already said he thought there could be trouble
Not true.
So they attorney is a blatant liar, big surprise.
You already said drinking and drugs are common at this event. And you brought a gun "just in case."
Why would someone assume there is a high probability of violence if it had historically been a peaceful social gathering?
> talking shit about some girl
> "bemusement"
> gets called out
> scared as shit
> rants about it on PrepHole
Seriously, sell your gun.
>Guy starts punching me
>One
>Two
>Three
>nose broken
>seven
>eight
>vision getting blurry
>thirteen
>fourteen
>feel my jaw break
>thirty five
>thirty six
>Ahhh YES!! FINALLY Some homosexual lawyer on /k/ says I can defend myself now!!
If punched you can defend yourself by punching and grappling in response. Or carry pepper spray. Everybody should carry pepper spray or a taser in addition to their gun
There's nothing stopping you from blasting the other guy on the spot. But you'll probably go to prison for it. It's your life pal
>Attorneys like to imagine themselves as people who deal in objective facts
I've known a few attorneys and literally not one of them thinks this way.
>In fact, you don't even have to be under attack, merely threatening posturing is enough to qualify for self-defense
It depends entirely on your jurisdiction, and that's a minority position
The guy being replied to was trying to claim being punched just one time wasn't enough to qualify for self defense which is obviously bullshit.
Being punched once is enough to claim self defense, but it is more than likely insufficient to successfully claim use of deadly force. In most jurisdictions you need to be threatened with deadly force OR have reasonable imminent fear for your life to use deadly force
>t. attorney
It's up to the jury whether they believe what you did was reasonable. You have to justify why you resorted to deadly force if you find yourself in court while the shitty prosecutor argues that the 5'5" 120lbs POC was incapable of projecting a deadly force threat through his tiny stature.
There isn't a statute that says "verily a punch is deadly force", in fact nearly all of self-defense is case law and precedence rather than statute. This means that every case is isolated, while there are trends, no two cases are the same and it's entirely circumstantial whether a punch is actually deadly force or not.
That was 100% small town corruption though, the shooter's girlfriend, the victim's ex-wife was a judge and had sufficient influence to get it thrown out. She was far too young to have become a judge on merit (early 30s) so there was some serious corruption involved in her even being a judge in the first place.
Bad example, really, unless your partner is a judge.
>If somebody assaults you there is no universe where you couldn't claim self-defense as a legal defense
Self defense and deadly force are two different animals
>If somebody assaults you there is no universe where you couldn't claim self-defense
lol
Except you can just as well make the argument that the people who assaulted him were doing so in self defense.
An unsupervised child with a gun? That is clearly a threat to everyone present, regardless of intentions.
woopsie, looks like he got sentences for willingly putting himself in a stupid situation
He was pardoned and the little commie he killed is dead. (:
>He was pardoned
was he? All im seeing is articles saying the gov WANTED to pardon him. Also you are deranged.
>late outing
Don’t leave home at night, only stupid shit happens.
Very edgy, 3/10
He's right. Why are we living in a society where low IQ belligerent people can not be confronted to calm the frick down, without us having to worry about being either physically attacked by them or put in prison defending ourselves from them? This atomized society is fricking disgusting. The savages all act in cohesion, not on purpose but by nature of their savage and low IQ impulsive ways, and the smart people just have to sit back and take it in the ass. Everytime one steps outside of their home nowadays in a big city it's just filled to the brim with degenerates and people like you protect their way of life by being the type of bozo to try to put guys like Kyle Rittenhouse in prison. You should be forced to live with the filth you protect. Usually people who share your views are sheltered little queers who OCCASIONALLY interact with "inner city cultural enrichment" and think yourselves as men of the world.
>he
Join a gang. Start a gang.
You guys are talking about weighing prison sentences in the heat of the moment. You should do that at home before you decide to carry. (But you should have a good n at home)
>gang
Surely, you mean a group of trustworthy friends?
> I said "If you try, you will die. It's not worth it."
> If he attacked, I was ready to use deadly force.
This is the one time I wish I had the incel picture saved. Bragging about not being able to take a short mexican without ranting about your gun is pretty cucked.
You would have went to prison after too.
>pussy, tough guy, incel, can’t fight, etc.
Not that guy, but uhhhh post guns (and arms) and timestamp Black person
> he starts shit
> he plans to kill someone over "their gf being annoying"
> you are defending him
Same bucket. And I am not posting shit.
>translation: I don’t have any guns
That’s what I thought, homosexual European teenager
1. Having a gun is not an accomplishment.
2. If I post a gun, will you say you are wrong and that your entire world view revolves around whether or not someone could go to buds guns, pay $650, and drive to an FTL to pick it up?
>Black person doesn't post any himself
Black person
Here is a sincere answer, know the fricking law. Every state has different laws on self defense with a firearm. If you are carrying a gun you should know the fricking law inside and out. You should play the what if game in your head. Do not just go walking out the house with a gun, with some vague notion in your head of when you are going to use it.
Every state in the US requires innocence, imminence, proportionality, reasonableness, and few still require avoidance.
Innocence, you can't be the criminal party or inciter. Imminence, you can't be responding to a speculative or future threat. Proportionality, unless the guy is bigger or a professional boxer, a single punch is not deadly force. Reasonableness, you must have a subjectively reasonable explanation for your actions which will be tested objectively by a jury who asks whether they would have done the same. Avoidance, an antiquated idea that you have a duty to leave and avoid a deadly conflict until there is no other safe option.
Every single thing on your list is completely subjective and as it's already been shown proportionality by itself isn't even being enforced when mere words can give you justifiable self-defense for killing a man. It's not like the Chad Read shooting was the only one that's ever happened like this, it's just a high profile example. People get shot all the time just for walking across somebody's property, they get shot for breaking into a house even though they were never assaulted and there wasn't an imminent threat. It's not "proportional" because somebody wanted to steal your TV and they lose their life.
The part that you're missing is that sometimes the deadly threat is IMPLIED. This is why trespassing and burglary and mere words can and often do result in justifiable self-defense.
Reasonableness and proportionality go hand in hand. If you believed that a deadly-force threat was IMPLIED, then you will get to have that tested by a jury. They'll decide if it was reasonable.
You better have facts that support your reasonable belief because you can't just speculate that there was a deadly threat.
You cannot reliably trust the justice system to protect you in self defense shootings if it seems like you in any way caused it. Otherwise you'd have people going around randomly baiting people into attacking them so they can shoot them(this has happened and these people were locked up)
Simply put, if you are carrying a lethal weapon you cannot insult or antagonize people in any way that may lead to violence.
Indeed, if you don't have a weapon, don't look for trouble. If you DO have a weapon, don't look for trouble. Just don't look for it and you won't ever find it
Pussy
cmon buddy
What the frick you gonna do? Huh? SPEAK UP b***h!
So now you're gonna tell me what to do, you stupid fricking c**t? Frick up, nancy. You're such a little b***h and a good goyim. I'll bait your mom with my 9 inch wiener. How'd that make you feel? You are such a wimp.
So calling someone's son a Black person homosexual just to provoke them into fighting is against the law?
No, the "attorneys" are lying to you though half truths, which is basically their MO. They would have to prove that you provoked the attack in order to retaliate which is probably not going to happen unless you basically sit down and confess to it. Just like homosexuals here fantasize about blasting a home intruder with their expensive guns, lawyers like to fantasize about these legal scenarios where they convince a jury that you said Black person as a set up to murder someone.
The actual legal standard primarily exists in the mind of the shooter, that is if he had a genuine and reasonable fear for his life, even if he was mistaken, and it ultimately comes down to the jury.
Whenever you hear a lawyer start talking about some shit they think they know from law school, stop listening. These are either law students or freshly minted lawyers who have no experience. Experienced lawyers are so painfully aware of the differences between law school theory and real life that they would be embarrassed to even bring it up.
>lawyers like to fantasize about these legal scenarios where they convince a jury that you said Black person as a set up to murder someone
What I have to wonder is why. First, aren't prosecutors a very, very small portion of lawyers? And secondly, what kind of sad schmuck looks forward to punishing people for defending themselves?
Prosecutors are often profoundly shitty people.
>what kind of sad schmuck looks forward to punishing people for defending themselves?
>ITT: some guy who thinks prosecutors have hearts of gold and don’t railroad innocent people just to pump up their stats or kick off a political career.
Tony Rackakas and Todd Spitzer would like to have a word with you.
Its their job, the win by interpreting the law the best. Their existence leads to laws being better refined. You have a small, angry brain so you cant appreciate that.
Their job isn’t just to win. As prosecutors they also have a duty to gatekeep cases that shouldn’t be filed. That’s what a DA reject is. But sometimes they see fame or higher office as an outcome and don’t faithfully execute that role. Other times, they have a loyalty to local law enforcement that makes them railroad defendants. By the way, I’m yet another “attorney” who knows you’re full of shit, and I haven’t seen the inside of a law school in 20-plus years. The clients we make the most fun of are the armchair quarterbacks like you who are confident idiots, get a notion in their head about what the law is or should be, and think it makes them smarter than Clarence Thomas.
No, but if you try to claim self-defense after shooting the guy you just called Black person, the prosecutor is going to get a jury instruction that you can be convicted of manslaughter for having provoked the attack.
>verbal provocation nullifies your right to use lethal force
It's truly unfortunate that that's the reality we live in, the world would be a better place without hot heads.
Unless you think about it for longer than 15 seconds. Lot of dumb irrational impulsive people out there, and there always have been. If people legally carrying firearms are able to coax and instigate dumbasses into altercations without looming legal recourse if they use deadly force in a situation they started, it'd be a shitshow
Still not seeing how allowing darwinism to work would be a bad thing.
Wow what a tragic loss to society it would be if all the hotheads with the impulse control of a rabid chimp got shot for their own temper
All things considered, theyd be the ones to shoot first
>intentionally start a fight with someone you know is unarmed
>suddenly surprise them by pulling out a gun and blowing them a way
In first world countries this is called "murder"
>Be homosexual.
>Carry gun because homosexual.
>Look like a homosexual.
>Not respected by women or men because homosexual.
>Randomly talk shit because homosexual with gun.
>Assume my gun will bail me out of acting like a homosexual.
>Act like a homosexual because gun.
>Homie gets in your face and calls you out.
>Stand there like a homosexual while homie dresses you down and calls you out.
Never change OP. Never change.
there's a bunch of gays sounding like female european redditors itt
> intimidation is a valid tool
> self defense fantasizers
> intimidation is a valid tool
Post BMI.
Intimidation is assault, potentially with a deadly weapon if you brandish.
Don't use things offensively.
>alive
>uninjured
>no pending litigation
You could not have handled it better. Some people might criticize you for choosing to stare him down instead of trying to de-escalate, but intimidation is a valid tool in the tool box and it worked right for this job. Don’t let internet tough guys or self defense fantasizers tell you any different. No one knows how they’ll react until they’re in that situation and you got the best outcome.
Low reward to risk ratio. You can be right all day long and still have to defend your decisions in court.
This.
you should have a nice day.
To be clear, being punched many times especially in the head is different than a singular punch being thrown at you. A single punch is considered non-deadly force, but many is easily deadly.
You don't have to take a blackout beating/brain damage to resort to deadly force. It's very reasonable to disengage from the conflict, not be allowed to while graying out, and use your firearm.
>I said his GF was an idiot.
>I said his GF was an idiot.
>I said his GF was an idiot.
You were a part of this idiotic drama because you chose to participate.
A similar situation happened to me
>be me
>waiting for a ride from a coworker at my now ex gf apartment complex
>just typing on my phone browsing PrepHole not really paying attention to my surroundings
>this was a low income housing
>I was so used to the normal working class of my neighborhood
>i forgot that those apartment complex are there to house animals
>some tatted up short gangbanger been to prison type with his daughter is right next to me
>I wasn’t paying attention till I looked down at this worthless manlet and saw him making a fist.
>he asked me if i lived there and I said no just saying with my gf for a few days.
>and that I am just waiting for a a ride
>I told him I will go wait for my ride across that street if that bothered him
>meanwhile i act like i am armed(I wasn’t)
>start backing away from striking range from him so I could get distance to use my tool
>I think he thought I was to much trouble and left me alone
>while I am still waiting around the same area
>could still see waste of taxpayer money and his daughter waiting for the school bus
>6.5 massive white dude starts coming out of his shithole apartment start trying to start things
>I could here foot step behind me and I turn around to look
>as anyone would in a hostile environment in case a threat was sneaking up to them
>it was just a girl walking to the bus
>starts of accusing me of being a pedophile looking at little girls
>start backing away with the implication I armed
>keeping a distance and my hand on my shirt for a faster draw
>something clicks in his head that he might die today if he does this
>he stays yelling at me on the same spot not coming any closer
>that would get him shot
>my rides arrive and he says that’s right leave
>I am trying to get to work not have a duel leaving was my goal the whole time
>whoever since I pay taxes it’s my street to wait for my ride not there’s.
Glad I never went back there after we broke up
>willing to engage in violence in front of your children for no reason other than "you in mah hood"
pottery at its finest willing to die over frickin territory they don't even own.
Gangbanging fathers who haven’t grown up after having a child are the worse
They expect you give them mercy because muh kids
Even thought they willing committed acts of violence
You would be completely wrong in saying they shouldn’t be killed if they lost the violent altercation
They themselves most likely started
Because anyone involved does so by choice
diganobs is as diganobs does mane.
>Hi /k/ I just came back from a late outing where I got into an altercation. Some young idiot, a mexican machismo type
stopped reading right there. if all details are true that guy would have fought you over a frickin parking spot or any other moronic thing. its best to not engage with the mentally moronic anon.
I agree with you because I’ve experienced it
Many times I have offered those waste of skin
To just walk away and forget about
But they insisted on trying to assault me
I was reading about all of this shit that can happen from a single punch and I came across a documentary called one punch homicide where they cover a lot of different cases where somebody was killed from a single punch. the premise is that it happens so much more frequently than people expect but the law generally seems to treat it as a very unusual outcome even though there are thousands of cases of it.
https://m.imdb.com/title/tt2073046/
This is an interesting article about it in the context of homicide as an unintentional outcome of punching someone.
https://www.mountfordchambers.com/blog-one-punch-manslaughter-one-size-does-not-fit-all/
I also read a couple of laws that were either being proposed or passed in several States about the ability to upgrade or downgrade assault by punching into a homicide or preventing it from becoming homicide depending on the state.
All that is debatable but what's not debatable is the fact that a punch can kill you. The legal classification probably doesn't matter much if you're the one being punched.
What matters is whether a jury finds what you did was reasonable and that will depend on the facts surrounding the punch, not the punch itself.
Self-defense is not a statutory matter, it's case law.
You guys are so fricking stupid I can't even sit here and read this shit. Not only do you understand the basics of the field of law, you definitely don't even understand like the 2 things you need to know to carry a gun. That wouldn't even require am academy or law school to understand, it's basic shit you can look up or get through a class and you don't even bother or know how to do that. None of you should be carrying guns.
>he says as he pretends A CASE NOT TRIED ON THE MERITS IS PRECEDENCE.
You are so fricking moronic.
Missing the point entirely, you make my point exactly. You don't even want it to be referred to the court you fricking moron, and not everything that goes to court goes to trial and especially not jury trial. Some moronic said case law dictates self defense instances and not legislative law at all. You're all so fricking dumb, this is not the place to get any sort of legal knowledge, to any non-complacent person reading this. You're all overestimating what you know about law and even basic human reasoning, you sound like complete morons and are going to get yourselves into major shit.
I'm very skeptical that actual licensed attorneys would be dumb enough to be on this board posting legal advice to random people about using deadly force. Sounds like the world's most obvious liability.
>he thinks you need to be a licensed attorney to know 1 or 2 laws
Omg I can't, it's like talking to a bunch of kindergarteners.
>I'm very skeptical that actual licensed attorneys would be dumb enough to be on this board posting legal advice to random people about using deadly force. Sounds like the world's most obvious liability
It's not legal advice, it's a discussion about legal topics on a public forum. There is no ability to form a client-attorney relationship on a forum such as this due to the anonymity; therefore there's no liability. You'd know this if you took legal ethics when you were a 2L or 3L, but you didn't because you never were.
Additionally, there are plenty of attorneys on /k/. I've bumped into a few who clearly weren't larping, and one of my colleagues is on here occasionally when he gets bored on PrepHole
Yeah... We're so scared of being caught giving legal advice on an anonymous website! You caught us. We're lying. We must be nolife losers like you.
That's where you're wrong chief. It's your problem. It's the entire problem of the USA and your future children (if you aren't a troon or hook noser).
Self defense is primarily case law. For the most part statutory law will only determine whether the prosecutor can argue that a person should have made an effort to avoid the conflict.
This is word soup to a legally trained person.
You make it sound so gray area when many things in law are black and white. It would be per state statutes a person wouldn't even be arrested following a justified use of lethal force. My state is Arizona, this is another thing that's making me lol at you morons, you don't realize there's jurisdictional law. You state something as if it applies to all 50 states and US Code all at the same time.
This is how laws read:
https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/00405.htm
https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/00411.htm
Case law is another animal where you actually have to know the cases but there are reference lists of notable cases available. A big federal one for use of force is Graham v Connor, this is one that state legislators have to consider when making their laws regarding the justification of use of force in law enforcement. This is also spelled out clearly, but this law itself is influenced by Graham v Connor and if it went against it would be challenged. That's how case law plays a role, it overturns legislative law in some cases.
https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/00410.htm
This is what I would reference, actual laws pertaining to my jurisdiction. What you morons are referencing is bullshit you read online and your own schizophrenic voices.
Here's another one pertaining to self defense justification.
https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/00404.htm
So all that shit you're claiming a prosecutor and jury just make up on a whim, this is the type of law they're actually going off of. Every state has laws spelled out similar to this one, and when you see cases playing out they're hitting those elements and showing whether the defendant did or did not meet those elements. It's not subjective, it's very objective. Except when juries come into play but they're used to con people out of justice at this point by using morons with no understanding of law, who think with their feelings, to interpret law. Please do not discuss law if you don't actually understand it, you only create more morons.
Every statute you cited requires a jury find that the person in question is "reasonable" which is a fact question. How do we know what reasonable people look like? case law. A judge would never dismiss or grant summary judgement because you cited statutes that require a jury to find your client is reasonable.
Dear lord the moronation is stronger than a fart on an airplane. That's just one of the fricking elements.
That's the primary element in the statutes you cited dude, I don't know why you bothered with them. The other five elements aren't necessarily enshrined in statutory law and regardless of whether someone comports with a plain text reading of the statute, they will still need to meet at least 4 of the 5 elements.
It's not a primary element and not even really that important a piece of the law. It's a singular element on its own and one that rarely gets challenged. The law is putting forth that if you see someone raping someone, killing someone, about to burn down an occupier structure, committing burglary in the first degree, etc then you have the right to use immediate deadly force. The WHY you did it is the most important part. The reasonable person clause just states why did you believe this thing was happening, and was your belief reasonable. You'd be surprised how objective that portion is too, very little is left up to subjectivity but there is indeed a human element of all law. The law itself it written so objectively as to remove most of it and only allow for small things like the spirit of the law vs the letter of the law, or the dude waiting in his garage for some kids to trespass as an excuse to kill them, areas where human reasoning should override the letter because some butthole need to go to jail.
To put the reasonable standard into an example, if OP had clocked that beaner and the cops showed up, they'd ask him why he did it and if he responds:
>cuz I got bugs under my skin and he turned into a frickin dragon and was trying to steal muh pot o gold! *meth twitch*
vs
>he approached me yelling that he was going to hit me, he had his fists balled, I could tell by his expression he was angry, his gf was egging him on and he closed the distance, I knew I was going to be hit.
Option two covers that a reasonable person would believe an assault/battery was about to take place. Option one has not really articulated the why, he hasn't covered any of the elements for justification and would rely on witness statements to cover them if they're even there.
Which statutes are you going to cite in a pre-trial motion to dismiss on a self defense case that you believe would actually work? The judge won't grant it because it's a fact question.
The individual facts of a case and whether the use of deadly force comports with the loose mold of permissible homicide is going to determine the legal outcome. The loose mold is defined better in case law, not a plain reading of statute. Plenty of "instructors" are intimately familiar with plain text statutory readings which appear deceptively permissive, but are actually narrow when the courts apply them.
Acting like law is some kind of noble profession, but the curtain has been pulled back and we see how the sausage is made. Corrupt judges and prosecutors and DAs, sweetheart plea deals for the wealthy and politically connected, for profit prison systems with bonuses going to judge us for their conviction rate, family courts tearing people apart, divorce courts financially raping men into suicide, all the while talking about the sanctity of the justice system. It's pathetic.
Get off your fricking cross already.
What you're talking about are pre-attack indicators. Stance, posture, standing close, balled fists, facial expressions, things being said. You have little clue what those are and zero clue what a force continuum is. You're not justified in using deadly force against someone who is not using or indicating deadly force. You should not be carrying a gun, it's a bigger liability to you than it is protection. Learn to fight and talk to some cops to sort your shit out little pussy boy. These monkeys posture and bluff all the time. They're nothing to be worried about. If you felt like it you can crack his jaw or burst his liver for the pre-attack indicators, and yes you can hit first with no warning. There's no such thing as a sucker punch especially when someone is indicating attack.
>There's no such thing as a sucker punch
Peak /k/ wisdom right here.
>no neck
That is certainly not “every 5.56 ballistics test ever”
No, OP, you fricked up. You had a perfect opportunity to put a filthy Hispanic in the ground - maybe two! - and you played it wrong and now there's still a fricking beaner douchebag out there continuing to waste American air.
Next time use your nonverbals to get that wetback to attack, and then shoot him into the dirt. Seriously, what a fail.
Lol. You say this in jest, but this is half right. And I only say half right because we both know the justice system would BURY OP in a prison full of savages. And no CCW as a safety blanket anymore.
This is one of the best pieces of evidence for gun control lmao. You can't trust guns in the hand of gringordos
Called some dude’s girlfriend an idiot then scared to fist fight. Just another pussy ass who thinks an ass beating is worse than death.
Your first mistake was insulting someone else in public, especially a woman. Your second mistake was not making it right when confronted. Your third mistake was assuming you were free to use deadly force in that situation.
You probably did/said the right thing to make him back off, which is what you are fishing for here. Never put anyone else in that situation ever again. Watch your mouth when you're out and about. You never know what kind of crazy is going to respond to your bad attitude.
>Everyone else in the world should cater to nutjobs and other freaks
Mentalities like yours are part of why the world is in such a shitty state.
>all we need to do to save the world is be mean go people!
t. Internet bully
Agreed, but that's not how things work in real life and acting like a moron will get you killed or thrown in prison for a long time, thereby basically killing you.
The threat was ill advised, even from a non legal stand point (where it’s OH SHIT Black person WYD tier ill advised) all it encourages is for him to loop around armed and ready.
Either shoot or don’t but don’t threaten. Lucky he was unarmed, a b***h, and or smart enough not to escalate.
hispanics, africans, middle easterners and other browns trying to understand the difference between words and physical violence: mission impossible
lets see those gun violence numbers broken down by race
White can't fight.
cope
Pretty sure we colonized and enslaved the whole world at one point.
Getting into fist fights is for morons.
homie moment x 3
Wow a brownoid b***hing about armed whites. Shocking.
If you think someone is acting dumb and you have the need to inform them that's about the time I've found it's better to just tell someone I'm gonna dip this isn't my scene or try to gather up my squad and see if they're up to go or if they want to stick around and can find another way home.
If you put yourself in his shoes his girl sounds like a dumb and probably isn't very difficult. He probably thought you were negging, or if she's actually not that bad looking it's not that uncommon for guys to try and muscle in on your squeeze. I like to try to take it as more of a litmus test if I can't trust them when I'm around I definitely don't trust them when I'm not there and would rather just call it quits and try to block them to avoid their drama and 1000 missed calls and them asking everyone they know about me and trying to follow me around in public and talking shit. Otherwise guys think a fist fight is going to settle things. I mean if she's dumb, let them be dumb how does it effect you? They're going to stay dumb whether you say they're dumb or not. I mean if you really thought a fight was going to happen there you should have punched her and ran for it.
The correct protocol was to shoot him and his idiot girlfriend and hide the bodies in the desert
And then everyone clapped
I guess I'll be the one to ask, what is this op image trying to convey?
Did this dude REALLY just try to use a stock photo equivalent of the Arthur fist meme to convey his own badassery?
you were stupid for getting into that situation, but de-escalation is de-escalation
avoidance in the first place is the best optional, but you should have "layered" self defense options
>bright flashlight. you can blind and disorient a threat without harming them
>pepper spray. an appropriate response to unarmed butthole who want to fight
>pistol. use when your life is at risk
>knife. only resort to this if shits fricked and you cant use your pistol for some reason.
Out of curiosity, why did you calm her an idiot?