Thug gets a slug !

[ja308]

The moral question is whether one should strive to deescalate situations while carrying.

My personal view is that I should avoid bad areas, leave if confrontation seems likely, deescalate if I cannot leave, retreat if possible, etc. Starting a confrontation eliminates majority of the "avoidance" options and it's all down to the last item - self-defense.

One has to take into account who they are challenging too. If the person is not likely to respond to reason, the confrontation is likely to lead to altercation, which leads to potential shooting. This is where personal responsibility should kick in and an inner voice should simply say: "it's not worth getting into serious self-defense situation over giving a lecture to an ignorant person with a criminal boyfriend."

Of course, this is very personal and I don't want to impose it on anyone else. It's just how I handle situations. That's why I'm defending the actions as "legal," rather than "moral" - the former is objective, the latter is personal.

In that life is wonderful and the legal problems associated with drilling someone in self defense would cause huge financial problems and possibly alter my life forever.
I agree its best to avoid confrontation if its possible.

At the NRA convention this year there were free seminars on issues like this and on dealing with the police if such an incident occurs.
It should be noted that the gentleman who smoked the thug in self defense, handled the situation well by waiting for the police and securing his firearm within his vehicle.

Although we personally would not do what this Florida man did by confronting a person like that. I am pleased he terminated this worthless,violent parasite from society.

[norcal77]

[norcal77]

By the time police respond, those guys would've been driven far away from the scene. Do you think the police would respond?

While the approach Drejka chose still can be discussed, he did the right thing. He spotted a violation and educated the person about the law violated. Again, he probably might have chosen a different tone of voice, he did the right thing

No, he was an instigator looking to try his bullets on someone

[meno377]

To me it looked like he pushed the guy and was waiting for him to get up and possibly fight, the old dude was baiting people with his ‘righteous cause’ so he could have an excuse to shoot

Both idiots but the shooter instigated it, he should face murder charges

Explain how Drejka instigated the incident when he was arguing with the woman and wasn't aware McGlockton was coming at him? Did he even know that McGlockton was with the woman? You make it sound as if he would have shot the woman. Did Drejka even move when McGlockton pushed him? No he didn't. Watch the video again. Not one move from Drejka until he was pushed. No defensive stance.

[norcal77]

Explain how Drejka instigated the incident when he was arguing with the woman and wasn't aware McGlockton was coming at him? Did he even know that McGlockton was with the woman? You make it sound as if he would have shot the woman. Did Drejka even move when McGlockton pushed him? No he didn't. Watch the video again. Not one move from Drejka until he was pushed. No defensive stance.

[meno377]

There is one incident from before. That's it and the store clerk claims he is a regular who doesn't bother anyone. He didn't do anything illegal and he has the right to confront someone regarding a handicap parking space. Was it in his best interest? Maybe not, but he had every right to do that. Should it be ignored when someone breaks the law? Should we all turn a blind eye regardless?

[hermosabeach]

I nominate this as worst thread title of the year

[Yodaman]

Duuuuuuupe


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[riderr]

There was nothing heroic or epic there. He didn't risk his life for the right cause. He simply asked (or educated) not so law-abiding fellows on the basic principals.

Drejka knew exactly what he was gonna do once somebody gave him the opportunity...

You must be a professional psychic.

He didn't harass any law-abiding citizen, did he? He only spent his time educating law violators.

[MrTokarev]

[mansysinatra]

Title of this thread is stupid.

Shot was legal. It was also stupid. Avoid controntation if you're carrying.

Attacker stopped and moved away. Press charges then. If he comes back, then shoot.

This thread is exactly what paints gun owners in a bad light.

Have fun making the 2A community look stupid and bloodthirsty.

No need to celebrate the shooting and come up with cute little rhymes.

I'll stick to taking new people to the gun range. It's fun, especially when they enjoy it and get into guns. Just more support for 2A in a hostile state.

In b4: commie, libtard, soshillizm, if I was there I woulda, etc.

[riderr]

No, he was an instigator looking to try his bullets on someone

He was an innocent victim of an unprovoked physical violance.

[riderr]

Title of this thread is stupid.

Shot was legal. It was also stupid. Avoid controntation if you're carrying.

It's irrelevant, whether you carry or not.

Attacker stopped and moved away. Press charges then. If he comes back, then shoot.

McGlockton attacked then moved forward. When the gun appeared on the scene, he moved back, but probably too late. The bullet was on the way out at that point.

This thread is exactly what paints gun owners in a bad light.

Have fun making the 2A community look stupid and bloodthirsty.
No need to celebrate the shooting and come up with cute little rhymes.

I hear one hell of a liberal anti-gun speech here.

I'll stick to taking new people to the gun range. It's fun, especially when they enjoy it and get into guns. Just more support for 2A in a hostile state.

In b4: commie, libtard, soshillizm, if I was there I woulda, etc.

It's actually quite opposite. People will see what they can do to prevent street crime and "hood" behaviors.

[norcal77]

There is one incident from before. That's it and the store clerk claims he is a regular who doesn't bother anyone. He didn't do anything illegal and he has the right to confront someone regarding a handicap parking space. Was it in his best interest? Maybe not, but he had every right to do that. Should it be ignored when someone breaks the law? Should we all turn a blind eye regardless?

[norcal77]

There was nothing heroic or epic there. He didn't risk his life for the right cause. He simply asked (or educated) not so law-abiding fellows on the basic principals.

You must be a professional psychic.

He didn't harass any law-abiding citizen, did he? He only spent his time educating law violators.

Educating law violators belongs to the police and judges, not some random idiot