JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
A good portion of the people u see out and about in Portland are crazy or on drugs. Just the other day I was driving and a normally dressed lady about the same age as taco-bell assailant jumped in front of my car with her hand out and said "stop!" I said, "what are you doing?" She said, "I'm an engineer!" Makes zero sense what these poeple do. Whether they are crazy or on drugs the result is the same. We need to always be aware and always carry in PDX IMO. I mean until u are able to move to a better place of course. ;)
 
It's harder to spot crazy these days.

In my youth if you saw someone that looked like they were arguing with themselves you would likely think they may have a screw loose. Now you just figure they are talking on the phone. :confused:

Dog gone it life sure has gotten confusing.:eek:
 
In a perfect world, they'd share a cell.

IMG_6244.jpg
 
Heck you all were willing to give Michael Drejka five seconds after being pushed, apparent that extra second needed for him to process was one too many.

"You all".............. Not me. He totally Guygered that dude, no matter the timeline.


It's funny how they say crazy people aren't responsible for their behavior but they somehow figure out how to behave whilst in prison.

They do?o_O

Crazy fat cow. No skills no job, just a burden on society. Her bastard children will likely be the same. She should be dropped in a vat and converted into diesel fuel. Fat burns.

And that is the plan for "green energy"??? Ima watch out cuz Ima fat boy! "Soylent Green... It's people!!!!!"
 
Wasn't that the name of the cop, Amber Guyger, that was just convicted of murder in the "wrong apt" shooting of a black man?

I did not follow that trial because I figured that she would be found guilty for entering the wrong apartment. Talk about your uneven sentences!

Guyger got 10 years, but will only have to serve 5 for murder and Drejka gets a full 20 years for self-defense after actually being attacked. Consensus on the Gun forums is that Drejka shouldn't have tapped on her window and waited a second too long before shooting the guy. REALITY is SHE rolled down her window and initiated contact verbal with him, the now dead guy was the one who started the physical fight, and Drejka did not shoot until he mis-perceived the dead guy moving towards him which is still reasonable after getting ones bell rung. Jurors for both Drejka and Guyger had their minds made up going in.
 
Last Edited:
With a surprise attack like this, at what point could you legally shoot?

A) Never, take it like a man,

B) Only during the attack so you would need to have had your finger already on the trigger,

C) Within One Second of the attack,

D) Within Two Seconds of the attack because she can turn back and strike your wife,

E) Within Three Seconds of the attack to give your brain time to process what was going on,

F) Four or more Seconds after the attack especially if the get away car is parked in a Handicapped spot!

Time isn't really the factor in this kind of situation. It's all about actions, not time.

As non-LEO civilians, we're allowed to fire to stop or prevent an attack..and that's about it. If someone has, say, cut my face, then turned their back and started walking off, I can't shoot. If they turn and make a move towards me, yeah...they're getting bullets until they disengage, whether that be from fleeing, or becoming incapacitated.

In this situation, she was practically fleeing as the attack happened. However, if you've got your weapon aimed, it wouldn't be unreasonable to fire if she got too near anyone prior to leaving the restaurant. She's already attacked one person as a premeditated, unprovoked move. It's not unrealistic to think that she could open another throat on her way out. Personally, with the moves she made, I don't think I'd want to be in front of the court on that one.
 
I did not follow that trial because I figured that she would be found guilty for entering the wrong apartment. Talk about your uneven sentences!

Guyger got 10 years, but will only have to serve 5 for murder and Drejka gets a full 20 years for self-defense after actually being attacked. Consensus on the Gun forums is that Drejka shouldn't have tapped on her window and waited a second too long before shooting the guy. REALITY is SHE rolled down her window and initiated contact verbal with him, the now dead guy was the one who started the physical fight, and Drejka did not shoot until he mis-perceived the dead guy moving towards him which is still reasonable after getting ones bell rung. Jurors for both Drejka and Guyger had their minds made up going in.

Consensus on the Gun forums? Is that what's bothering you? Is that what's got ya down Bunky? You might have mentioned that in the first place rather than using the blanket accusation of "you all". Had I known you were headed to a rehash of Drejka, I wouldn't have bothered trying to come up with a cogent answer to your informal poll in this thread about the Taco Bell slasher. Let it go Brother!
 
Agree with savage gerbil about the time factor. The key here imo is victim unfortunately was not aware of surroundings (not blaming him, just telling it like it is). If he was aware he could have defended himself whether that was by grabbing lady's knife hand, then twisting it around and shoving it up her keister, blocking/deflecting her hand/arm or dodging it and then pulling a weapon to defend himself, or whatever.

I would say be aware of threat, then neutralize, deflect, or dodge the blow so u can get to where u can take effective action, then whatever action is needed. Let's say f.e. all he did was get his left hand on her knife hand. That would be enough to make any knife wound pretty insignificant or most likely none. Then what he does with his free hand there are lots of options including drawing a weapon.

Also agree with savage gerbil that it is always best to think in terms of stopping the attack. And never let pride, ego, or anything else come into it (no matter how hard that may be in the heat of the moment). Also imo it's better to think in terms of stopping the attack than "detaining" the assailant. LEOs most often have to detain the assailant vs citizens our job is to stop the attack. So if she is out the door running to her car that is really no longer stopping the attack. Now if she was trying to mow you down with her car that's different, again stopping an attack. 2 cents
 
Last Edited:

Upcoming Events

Oregon Arms Collectors March Gun Show
Portland, OR
Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top