Minor scuffle in Moscow, ID at protest today. MMQB opportunity.

Messages
10,918
Reactions
26,092
The authorities arrived, both sides were heard, the video was referenced with the statements of the two involved, and those that witnessed the altercation.... Nobody was taken to jail, no guns tools were confiscated, and everybody went their separate ways. THE END

BUT WAIT!:s0087:
You have to remember one VERY important part here. It's great no one was arrested. I am sure you do not go around trying to get arrested but, I can tell you for a fact getting arrested is VERY hard to do now days. So looks like no harm no foul. Until the shorts guys sues in civil court. If he chooses to do this the other guy will at best face legal hassle. At worst this could get real damn expensive to him. Some judge will get to decide. Chances the judge will side with shorts guy and or does not like anyone but him having guns? Want to bet on pants guy here? I do not.
Bottom line too even if this is a wash and nothing happens, this time. You bully people while carrying a gun in the open you are playing the odds. Back the wrong person into a corner they may pull their gun. Now what do you do? Shoot them? Think no one will be arrested after that? Or that it will all "just go away"? People all the time literally ruin the rest of their life with seconds of a poor choice like this. They always start out as something that seems like a great idea at the time.
In my job I regularly have people scream and call me every name they ever heard. I tend to smile and often laugh. This often makes them even angrier. If they chose to get physical with me they go down but often will not go to jail, I do not care. Still get paid on friday. One side is DESPERATELY trying to provoke people. At times a reaction is warranted. If you chose to go to some "event" like this, knowing people are going to try to provoke you, if you can not control your emotions you probably should not go and definitely should not carry a firearm. Is it really worth years to a lifetime of problems to be "right"?
 
Messages
591
Reactions
1,173
From my observation of the video, pants guy didn't seem especially threatening, but I also couldn't make out what he was saying, the volume of his voice, or the look on his face. I can only go on what I do see, which didn't appear to warrant the coffee. That said, pants guy should have stopped after the fist punch since shorts guy took it without returning the favor, but I will commend pants guy who appeared to come and check on shorts guy while he was on the ground. Since shorts guy clearly didn't seem to pose a threat at that point, that was an honorable thing to do.
 
OP
HaveGun

HaveGun

Messages
1,087
Reactions
2,516
Years ago, perhaps 1992, I had a similar altercation in Moscow. Different officers involved, of course.

I had just escorted a young lady to her apartment, we closed the door, and I was engaging her when I heard a crash on her door. I opened the door to find a a broken beer bottle on the ground and beer running down the door. I was looking around for the bottle thrower when the apartment door across from her door opened.

The Center for the U of I football team appeared, intoxicated, and looked at me. He asked me what the "F" I was doing and I said I was trying to figure out who threw a beer bottle at my lady friend's door. He indicated he did and asked what the hell I was going to do about it.

Great. Here we go...

I told him he was an idiot and he rushed out of his door and grabbed me by the shirt, so, being a former Defensive Tackle, I grabbed him and powered him back into his apartment and pinned him against the wall and told him to calm down. I then noticed movement out of the corner of my eye, just before the Kicker for the team used a frying pan to bean me upside the head. I fell down and the Center jumped on top of me and proceeded to try and strangle me while the Kicker started hitting me with the frying pan repeatedly.

I managed to throw the Center off of me, punched the Kicker, knocking him down, and ran out the door and back into the safety of the girl's apartment. Somebody called the police and I explained what happened when they arrived. I showed them the strangulation marks on my neck, my broken eyeglasses, and abrasions to the side of my head.

The football players of course claimed I was the aggressor and were simply defending themselves against a crazed giant redneck.

No charges were filed.

I was extremely pissed over the whole thing and felt like justice had not been served.

The cops knew that it would be word against word and decided to call it a draw since no one was seriously injured. Looking back, that was the appropriate decision.

I think they made a similar call in this incident, and it was likely the best call.
 
Messages
1,170
Reactions
2,458
It's great no one was arrested.
Yes, this seems to be an unfortunate incident that you'd hope both learn from so they will avoid a repeat in the future. I would not arrest either one unless one of them has a history of this type of thing - if they do, maybe they need a slap on the wrist and some unpaid community service. However, this whole thing occurred because people were arrested for not wearing masks at a mask protest! Those arrests were 1000 times dumber than this scuffle!


...but I will commend pants guy who appeared to come and check on shorts guy while he was on the ground. Since shorts guy clearly didn't seem to pose a threat at that point, that was an honorable thing to do.
If you go back to the OP video, and start at 1:27:00 and watch for 5 to 7 minutes there are several replays of the scuffle. The guy who checked on him was not pants guy. Pants guy was with a policeman tattling on shorts guy. :) Of interest in that video, is a female who, I think said she was with the press - she watches the replays and says shorts guy started it, which, clearly he did not - she is correct when she says the violent left typically start it, but in this case I think she is biased.

Start at about 1:27:00

 

oldcorpgunny

Messages
1,166
Reactions
2,899
The gun stayed put because the pants guy was never threatened. If shorts guy got the upper hand on the fight, would the gun have stayed put? At that point, pants guy or shorts guy could grab it.
Idaho becomes more attractive everyday. We've been looking in the Bonners Ferry area. Land prices seem to be very reasonable, so now I'm trying to find sun-contractors and get some estimates for construction.
 
You have to remember one VERY important part here. It's great no one was arrested. I am sure you do not go around trying to get arrested but, I can tell you for a fact getting arrested is VERY hard to do now days. So looks like no harm no foul. Until the shorts guys sues in civil court. If he chooses to do this the other guy will at best face legal hassle. At worst this could get real damn expensive to him. Some judge will get to decide. Chances the judge will side with shorts guy and or does not like anyone but him having guns? Want to bet on pants guy here? I do not.
Bottom line too even if this is a wash and nothing happens, this time. You bully people while carrying a gun in the open you are playing the odds. Back the wrong person into a corner they may pull their gun. Now what do you do? Shoot them? Think no one will be arrested after that? Or that it will all "just go away"? People all the time literally ruin the rest of their life with seconds of a poor choice like this. They always start out as something that seems like a great idea at the time.
In my job I regularly have people scream and call me every name they ever heard. I tend to smile and often laugh. This often makes them even angrier. If they chose to get physical with me they go down but often will not go to jail, I do not care. Still get paid on friday. One side is DESPERATELY trying to provoke people. At times a reaction is warranted. If you chose to go to some "event" like this, knowing people are going to try to provoke you, if you can not control your emotions you probably should not go and definitely should not carry a firearm. Is it really worth years to a lifetime of problems to be "right"?
Even tho the police did not arrest anyone at the scene, with the video 'shorts guy' can go to the DA and file a charge against 'pants guy'. As said earlier, I see the pants guy as the aggressor and by forcing shorts guy into a position that left him little choice, the throwing of the coffee (agree on the McD hot coffee line) to me does not imply that he started it. If pants guy had stopped at one punch, after the coffee toss, it would be all over. But by continuing the punches and knocking him to the ground shorts guy has a case. (not a lawyer) Punches to the head can lead to long lasting damage. I think he has a case for criminal AND civil charges. Plus the video will be embarrassing to him.
 
Wanting to move to "Moscow", Cour d Angeles is like moving to BosAngeles in Montana. Despite the realtor mantras and developers whispering 'bout what a great place Idaho is. It is just an enclave of kalifornia and other states of folks who want to fantasize about "the last great place in America" (only exists on belt buckles). Fires, winds, snow and cold may temper the desires, then add in the cost of living including food and fuel. Most folk make it about two years before the money (savings etc.) runs out and they find out three figure salaries are very scarce. But then, there is or used to be Micky D's or Wally world!
 
Messages
781
Reactions
728
Mr. Jack Azz Dumbtwit, meets Mr. Moron VonNumbnutz....
.... They then decide to compete to see who's head is emptier.

After a thorough review of the video, a tie is declared and both claim victory....
....All those that were witness to this event, find they have lost brain cells.:s0092:
Probably the most accurate assessment.
 
This brings up a pet peeve:

Two guys say rude and crappy things to each other til one of them gets triggered and administers "The right hand of God".

Two gals say rude and crappy things to each other til one of them gets triggered and the slapping, wrestling, and hair pulling starts.

But one gal says rude and crappy things to a guy, when the same would have triggered a beatdown between two guys, and gal walks away strutting and guy feels like he could dangle his feet off the edge of a dime and stews about it the rest of the day/night. That's how it works most of the time anyway. Unless you're a pimp.

Oy Vey!
Did someone say, “pimp”?

51594EBB-D1B7-4ECB-BDFF-53CA47901DB6.gif
 

washagonian

Messages
231
Reactions
295
I am not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV. But I do review laws and statues because I find that often we lay persons misunderstand them and develop myths around them.

Case in point: there is a train of discussion that suggests Shorts Guy clearly assaulted Pants Guy by throwing coffee in his face. I’m not sure it’s that simple.

A good prosecuting attorney (or an attorney for Shorts Guy in a civil suit) could easily argue that it was Pants Guy who committed 3rd degree assault against Shorts Guy by acting in an aggressive manner:

ASSAULT - (18-901-B - Idaho Statues)
"An intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent."


This Idaho definition refers to what most people know as 3rd Degree Assault. As I read the definition it does not require that the assailant make physical contact with someone. A person can be guilty of 3rd degree assault if they recklessly cause the fear of bodily injury. I would guess that Shorts Guy was pretty afraid of being assaulted - and I would imagine that that fear was ramped up by the fact that the Pants Guy had a gun on his hip.

If the attorney argued that point successfully, then the Shorts Guy was acting in self-defense. And the attorney would probably argue successfully that Shorts Guy throwing coffee in Pants Guy's face was not a disproportionate defensive response (as it was likely that the coffee had been in Short Guy’s hand long enough to not be scalding hot).

If that line of argumentation was successful - given the definition of 3rd degree assault, then when Pants Guy started punching Shorts Guy (who was not the instigator of the aggressive physical behavior) then the attorney would argue that Pants Guy then escalated the incident to 2nd degree assault. In Idaho I believe that is defined as Battery:

(18-903 - Idaho Statues)
BATTERY DEFINED. A battery is any:
(a) Willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another; or
(b) Actual, intentional and unlawful touching or striking of another person against the will of the other; or
(c) Unlawfully and intentionally causing bodily harm to an individual.


So, Shorts Guy retreats, never throwing a punch, but Pants Guy continues to attack him. An attorney could now probably successfully argue that Pants Guy has escalated his behavior to AGGREVATED ASSAULT.

18-905. AGGRAVATED ASSAULT DEFINED - 18-905 - Idaho Statues
An aggravated assault is an assault:
(a) With a deadly weapon or instrument without intent to kill; or
(b) By any means or force likely to produce great bodily harm.[; or] [Emphasis added by this author.]
(c) With any vitriol, corrosive acid, or a caustic chemical of any kind.
(d) "Deadly weapon or instrument" as used in this chapter is defined to include any firearm, though unloaded or so defective that it can not be fired.


I can hear the attorney now:

So, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Shorts Guy was engaging in his constitutional rights of assembly and free speech. But Pants Guy decided he didn't like what Shorts Guy had to say and they started to exchange words. That would be all fine and good - disagreement and discourse is how this country was founded. But when Pants Guy committee assault against Shorts Guy, forcing Shorts Guy to retreat and eventually defend himself in a proportionally appropriate manner, Pants Guy decided to escalate his confrontation from Assault to Battery, by knocking Shorts Guy to the ground and proceeding to strike him multiple times. As Shorts Guy rose and tried to escape Pants Guy continued to attack Shorts Guy even though Shorts Guy posed no threat to him. At that point Pants Guy committed Aggravated Assault upon Shorts Guy. In fact, it took the intervention of bystanders to stop Pants Guy’s attack on Shorts Guy.

And lets talk about the gun Pant’s Guy was toting on his hip. Let’s discuss how a reasonable person such as Shorts Guy might react to being attacked by someone brazenly displaying a firearm. Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, put yourself in Shorts Guy’s shoes. Would you be afraid that Pants Guy may use the gun on his hip against you if you started to defend yourself against him by fighting back. Given that Pants Guy was acting irrationally by escalating a disagreement about something as simple as wearing a face mask into assault and then battery, and then aggravated assault, wouldn’t you be afraid that such an irrational person might escalate the confrontation further by pulling out his gun and shooting you dead if you started to fight back to defend yourself. Of course you would. Any REASONABLE PERSON would have that fear.”


Aggrevated Assault in Idaho is a felony. If convicted, Pants Guy would loose his freedom and his second amendment rights (as well as other rights).

If Shorts Guy wanted to, he could press charges. Maybe in Idaho the prosecutors are more 2A friendly than where I live. But I bet a civil suit would land him a pretty penny and put Pants Guy into perpetual poverty.

Too often in the past, I - as a firearms owner and 2A advocate - have bought into the widely perpetuated myths about the use of force. When I have, I’ve done the firearms community a disservice. I’m trying not to do that any longer.

JMO. TWYLALTR.

(Just my opinion. Take what you like and leave the rest.)
 
Last edited:

oldcorpgunny

Messages
1,166
Reactions
2,899
I am not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV. But I do review laws and statues because I find that often we lay persons misunderstand them and develop myths around them.

Case in point: there is a train of discussion that suggests Shorts Guy clearly assaulted Pants Guy by throwing coffee in his face. I’m not sure it’s that simple.

A good prosecuting attorney (or an attorney for Shorts Guy in a civil suit) could easily argue that it was Pants Guy who committed 3rd degree assault against Shorts Guy by acting in an aggressive manner:

ASSAULT - (18-901-B - Idaho Statues)
"An intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent."


This Idaho definition refers to what most people know as 3rd Degree Assault. As I read the definition it does not require that the assailant make physical contact with someone. A person can be guilty of 3rd degree assault if they recklessly cause the fear of bodily injury. I would guess that Shorts Guy was pretty afraid of being assaulted - and I would imagine that that fear was ramped up by the fact that the Pants Guy had a gun on his hip.

If the attorney argued that point successfully, then the Shorts Guy was acting in self-defense. And the attorney would probably argue successfully that Shorts Guy throwing coffee in Pants Guy's face was not a disproportionate defensive response (as it was likely that the coffee had been in Short Guy’s hand long enough to not be scalding hot).

If that line of argumentation was successful - given the definition of 3rd degree assault, then when Pants Guy started punching Shorts Guy (who was not the instigator of the aggressive physical behavior) then the attorney would argue that Pants Guy then escalated the incident to 2nd degree assault. In Idaho I believe that is defined as Battery:

(18-903 - Idaho Statues)
BATTERY DEFINED. A battery is any:
(a) Willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another; or
(b) Actual, intentional and unlawful touching or striking of another person against the will of the other; or
(c) Unlawfully and intentionally causing bodily harm to an individual.


So, Shorts Guy retreats, never throwing a punch, but Pants Guy continues to attack him. An attorney could now probably successfully argue that Pants Guy has escalated his behavior to AGGREVATED ASSAULT.

18-905. AGGRAVATED ASSAULT DEFINED - 18-905 - Idaho Statues
An aggravated assault is an assault:
(a) With a deadly weapon or instrument without intent to kill; or
(b) By any means or force likely to produce great bodily harm.[; or] [Emphasis added by this author.]
(c) With any vitriol, corrosive acid, or a caustic chemical of any kind.
(d) "Deadly weapon or instrument" as used in this chapter is defined to include any firearm, though unloaded or so defective that it can not be fired.


I can hear the attorney now:

So, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Shorts Guy was engaging in his constitutional rights to assembly and free speech. But Pants Guy decided he didn't like what Shorts Guy had to say and they started to exchange words. That would be all fine and good - disagreement and discourse is how this country was founded. But when Pants Guy committee assault against Shorts Guy, forcing Shorts Guy to retreat and eventually defend himself in a proportionally appropriate manner, Pants Guy decided to escalate his confrontation from Assault to Battery, by knocking Shorts Guy to the ground and proceeding to strike him multiple times. As my client rose and tried to escape Pants Guy continued to attack Shorts Guy even though Shorts Guy posed no threat to him. At that point Pants Guy committed Aggravated Assault upon Shorts Guy. In fact, it took the intervention of bystanders to stop Pants Guy’s attack on Shorts Guy.

And lets talk about the gun Pant’s Guy was toting on his hip. Let’s discuss how a reasonable person such as Shorts Guy might react to being attacked by someone brazenly displaying a firearm. Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, put yourself in Shorts Guy’s shoes. Would you be afraid that Pants Guy may use the gun on his hip against you if you started to defend yourself against him by fighting back. Given that Pants Guy was acting irrationally by escalating a disagreement about something as simple as wearing a face mask into assault and then battery, and then aggravated assault, wouldn’t you be afraid that such an irrational person might escalate the confrontation further by pulling out his gun and shooting dead you if you started to fight back to defend yourself. Of course you would. Any REASONABLE PERSON would have that fear.”


Aggrevated Assault in Idaho is a felony. If convicted, Pants Guy would loose his freedom and his second amendment rights (as well as other rights).

If Shorts Guy wanted to, he could press charges. Maybe in Idaho the prosecutors are more 2A friendly than where I live. But I bet a civil suit would land him a pretty penny and put Pants Guy into perpetual poverty.

Too often in the past, I - as a firearms owner and 2A advocate - have bought into the widely perpetuated myths about the use of force. When I have, I’ve done the firearms community a disservice. I’m trying not to do that any longer.

JMO. TWYLALTR.

(Just my opinion. Take what you like and leave the rest.)
Thank you Mr. Perry. You may call your next witness. Ha!
 
I am not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV. But I do review laws and statues because I find that often we lay persons misunderstand them and develop myths around them.

Case in point: there is a train of discussion that suggests Shorts Guy clearly assaulted Pants Guy by throwing coffee in his face. I’m not sure it’s that simple.

A good prosecuting attorney (or an attorney for Shorts Guy in a civil suit) could easily argue that it was Pants Guy who committed 3rd degree assault against Shorts Guy by acting in an aggressive manner:

ASSAULT - (18-901-B - Idaho Statues)
"An intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent."


This Idaho definition refers to what most people know as 3rd Degree Assault. As I read the definition it does not require that the assailant make physical contact with someone. A person can be guilty of 3rd degree assault if they recklessly cause the fear of bodily injury. I would guess that Shorts Guy was pretty afraid of being assaulted - and I would imagine that that fear was ramped up by the fact that the Pants Guy had a gun on his hip.

If the attorney argued that point successfully, then the Shorts Guy was acting in self-defense. And the attorney would probably argue successfully that Shorts Guy throwing coffee in Pants Guy's face was not a disproportionate defensive response (as it was likely that the coffee had been in Short Guy’s hand long enough to not be scalding hot).

If that line of argumentation was successful - given the definition of 3rd degree assault, then when Pants Guy started punching Shorts Guy (who was not the instigator of the aggressive physical behavior) then the attorney would argue that Pants Guy then escalated the incident to 2nd degree assault. In Idaho I believe that is defined as Battery:

(18-903 - Idaho Statues)
BATTERY DEFINED. A battery is any:
(a) Willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another; or
(b) Actual, intentional and unlawful touching or striking of another person against the will of the other; or
(c) Unlawfully and intentionally causing bodily harm to an individual.


So, Shorts Guy retreats, never throwing a punch, but Pants Guy continues to attack him. An attorney could now probably successfully argue that Pants Guy has escalated his behavior to AGGREVATED ASSAULT.

18-905. AGGRAVATED ASSAULT DEFINED - 18-905 - Idaho Statues
An aggravated assault is an assault:
(a) With a deadly weapon or instrument without intent to kill; or
(b) By any means or force likely to produce great bodily harm.[; or] [Emphasis added by this author.]
(c) With any vitriol, corrosive acid, or a caustic chemical of any kind.
(d) "Deadly weapon or instrument" as used in this chapter is defined to include any firearm, though unloaded or so defective that it can not be fired.


I can hear the attorney now:

So, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Shorts Guy was engaging in his constitutional rights to assembly and free speech. But Pants Guy decided he didn't like what Shorts Guy had to say and they started to exchange words. That would be all fine and good - disagreement and discourse is how this country was founded. But when Pants Guy committee assault against Shorts Guy, forcing Shorts Guy to retreat and eventually defend himself in a proportionally appropriate manner, Pants Guy decided to escalate his confrontation from Assault to Battery, by knocking Shorts Guy to the ground and proceeding to strike him multiple times. As Shorts Guy rose and tried to escape Pants Guy continued to attack Shorts Guy even though Shorts Guy posed no threat to him. At that point Pants Guy committed Aggravated Assault upon Shorts Guy. In fact, it took the intervention of bystanders to stop Pants Guy’s attack on Shorts Guy.

And lets talk about the gun Pant’s Guy was toting on his hip. Let’s discuss how a reasonable person such as Shorts Guy might react to being attacked by someone brazenly displaying a firearm. Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, put yourself in Shorts Guy’s shoes. Would you be afraid that Pants Guy may use the gun on his hip against you if you started to defend yourself against him by fighting back. Given that Pants Guy was acting irrationally by escalating a disagreement about something as simple as wearing a face mask into assault and then battery, and then aggravated assault, wouldn’t you be afraid that such an irrational person might escalate the confrontation further by pulling out his gun and shooting dead you if you started to fight back to defend yourself. Of course you would. Any REASONABLE PERSON would have that fear.”


Aggrevated Assault in Idaho is a felony. If convicted, Pants Guy would loose his freedom and his second amendment rights (as well as other rights).

If Shorts Guy wanted to, he could press charges. Maybe in Idaho the prosecutors are more 2A friendly than where I live. But I bet a civil suit would land him a pretty penny and put Pants Guy into perpetual poverty.

Too often in the past, I - as a firearms owner and 2A advocate - have bought into the widely perpetuated myths about the use of force. When I have, I’ve done the firearms community a disservice. I’m trying not to do that any longer.

JMO. TWYLALTR.

(Just my opinion. Take what you like and leave the rest.)
All well written and I cannot find much wrong with your scenerio. But also if I were a 2A carrier in a 2A state, (I'm not, Oregon is not on my side) it is a tool. Not drawn or used to threaten its like a pocket knife I that have clipped to my pocket. Not sure that's an argument to put forward in a 'jury of my peers'. But the rest I agree with. Well done
 
Messages
3,021
Reactions
7,472
Background:

There was a protest against the extended mask wearing ordinance earlier in the week in my hometown of Moscow. It was organized by Christ Church of Moscow, which is a very controversial church. Some say they border on being a cult. Whole other issue I don't think is appropriate for the forum.

So, the church has a peaceful protest outside of City Hall. They are singing hymns when the local police come up and make five arrests. This makes national news and Tucker Carlson does a segment on it.

This attracts the attention of Ammon Bundy, who lives in the Boise area. His group, People's Rights, organizes a caravan to drive up to Moscow today to hold a rally outside of the police station.

The entire event is video taped and can be found here on Facebook: People's Rights

So the incident that occurred starts at the 1:26:45 mark.

Two men begin arguing. The guy in shorts is pro-mask and the guy in pants is anti-mask. Apparently, the shorts guy said some things to begin the argument and the pants guy starts approaching him arguing. Shorts guy starts backing up and pants guy continues advancing. Shorts guy is holding a mug of coffee and backs into a pickup. Pants get keeps getting closer so shorts guy throws hot coffee into his face. Pants guy reacts by punching shorts guy in the face. Pants guy then continues punching shorts guy and knocking him down.

Pants guy is clearly armed OWB with a 1911. Shorts guy is unarmed. Officers interview both and review video by witnesses.

I videoed a replay of the video taken by a witness. Unfortunately, I can't figure out how to post it. Says it doesn't have a valid file extension, despite me changing it to .mov. Whatever.

Anyway, after reviewing it, I think both are wrong. Pants guy shouldn't have advanced, shouldn't have gotten so close, and after the first punch that caused shorts guy to retreat, should not have continued the assault.

Shorts guy should not have been wearing shorts, lol. And, he should not have instigated the exchange and should not have thrown coffee in pants guy's face.

Officers ended up letting both go and I doubt they will bring charges against either.

Interested in other's take on this.
Coffee thrower got what he deserved. Had he not thrown the coffee - it would be cut and dry case of assault - since he threw the coffee - he instigated the physical confrontation. People need to learn that actions have consequences.
 

UPCOMING EVENTS

Free Firearms Safety Course (I-1639 Compliant)
Virtual Webinar (Zoom). Registration Link in the course description.
Seattle, WA, USA
Arms Collectors of SW Washington Gun Show
Battleground Community Center
912 E Main St, Battle Ground, WA 98604, USA
Rimfire Challenge Dec 12th @ DRRC
Douglas Ridge Rifle Club
27787 OR-224, Eagle Creek, OR 97022, USA

LATEST RESOURCE REVIEWS

  • Sportsman's Warehouse - Albany
    5.00 star(s)
    Good products at good prices with friendly and knowledgeable staff!
    We like to visit the Albany location as it's closer but have been to several others and they have all been great!:D
  • Umpqua Survival
    4.00 star(s)
    Easy NFA transfer
    I had a silencer transferred through their shop. The paperwork was quick and the staff helpful and friendly. Whilst waiting, I did see a nice...
  • MK Tactical
    5.00 star(s)
    Awesome staff
    Being new to the area and having just made an online purchase of an AR lower, I opted to use MK Tactical as my FFL, without knowing anything about...
  • J&B Firearm Sales
    5.00 star(s)
    Good local shop
    Picked up a rifle yesterday from J&B. This was the second or third gun purchase over the last few years from them. I always enjoy stopping by...
  • H&K Gun Shop
    5.00 star(s)
    The only place I have found 9mm in stock
    I’ll admit I didn’t even know this place existed, as I don’t tend to go into Forest Grove often. But it’s a giant (looks bigger from the...
Top Bottom