WWYD? Ambushed at the gas station

[GripItAndRipIt]

This link has several clips of Cops going at some ANTIFA morons. The one shows one Cop has had enough and lets one of them have it in the gut with a bean bag. I thought it would make a great Meme. Problem is they will of course want to fire the Cop now.

Antifa violently clashes with police outside Los Angeles spa following alleged transgender disrobing incident

Protesters and counter-protesters descended on a Korean spa in Los Angeles that became the latest culture war flashpoint last month when a customer complained that a transgender woman allegedly disrobed in the women's area.

www.foxnews.com

I'll bet they handed out a TON of loitering tickets!

 

[Alexx1401]

I'll bet they handed out a TON of loitering tickets!

View attachment 993997

The bean bags from the less lethal should be wrapped in a ticket. They could start passing them around

 

[Andy54Hawken]

My further thoughts....

It don't matter what you do.

You will be judged , second guessed , critiqued etc...as well as you , yourself being painted with a broad bush and in a certain light.

After all ...here we are on a gun forum , where we share a common interest...and we have many different views of what to do , what happened , even the very merits of the original post.

Just think of what will happen to you , out in the real world , where there are many folks do not like guns or gun owners.

Do what you need to do to survive the encounter...do your best to stay within legal methods / means while doing this.
Do what you can to avoid trouble.
Andy

 

[Knobgoblin]

Seems there's a lot blame being placed on the victims for being stupid, ignorant, etc.... Sometimes people end up in situations they 100% do not want to be in (like needing gas at that hour at that location). I would rather fill up at a well lit, albeit sketchy gas station than run out of gas a few blocks up the road where the situation may be way worse. Could they have made better choices to avoid that whole situation? Sure, but ultimately they were the victims and being called stupid because a group of thieves robbed them while they were just going about their business kinda pisses me off.

WWID? Once boxed in they were phlucked..... Once my wife backed into the vehicle that was strategically placed behind us, I would have had my wife stay in the car (getting out was not the best choice), lock the doors, then I would have called 911 on speaker phone and like @Knobgoblin suggested would state that I'm surrounded by a group of angry people, being held against my will and in fear for my life. I would then make sure I could quickly retrieve my firearm without actually brandishing it. Hopefully they'd get the picture and leave.

I have been the stupid person my fair share of times.
Thankfully it's never been a life changing outcome. It's definitely easier to Monday morning QB these situations than it is to extricate yourself from one as it unfolds. Making yourself look bigger (scarier) is pure animal instinct, humans displaying guns or other weapons is simply another evolution of said behavior. Plain and simple, a bluff is a bluff. Knowing what you're going to do if your bluff gets called is worth considering.

The woman at chipotle thought that hauling her blaster out of her purse was going to part the red sea. This is poor training or a complete lack of training. I hope nobody actually "instructed " her to use a loaded handgun as a compliance tool. It's best used for putting holes in things that you are convinced are trying to kill you.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

That happened a year ago. Never followed up to see how it all shook out. How to prevent it? Do not stand there and show a moron you can be a bigger moron, then pull a gun. Either walk away, or give up on the food, get back in your car and drive off.

I remember this incident. The mother (black) was not going to let this couple (white) leave without apologizing to her teenage daughter for allegedly bumping into her as she was leaving with two big bags of Chipotle. The mother got behind their vehicle to block their exit and then threatened to "beat the bubblegum out of your white bubblegum" (at least three criminal acts: unlawful detention, racial intimidation, and terroristic threat). Easy to armchair QB, of course, but my instinct would have been to roll up the windows, call 911, have pistols ready if needed, and wait for the cops. Tactical error: The white lady left the relative safety of the vehicle and brandished a firearm, likely out of fear and panic, and may be in the clear at least in accordance with the laws of Michigan...

"An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:"​

• "The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual." MCL 780.972(1)(a).

So Michigan says you can brandish if you meet the above. I'd say having an unhinged racist say they are going to "beat the bubblegum out of you" probably meets that standard. However, as I understand it, both of these presumably decent law-abiding citizens have been fired from their jobs, taken a huge financial hit, and likely irrepairable damage to their reputations. The new Scarlett Letter is 'R' and it stands for 'Racist.' And though they will probably be exonerated on state charges, wait until Merrick Garland sniffs an opportunity to virtue signal and string these poor bastards up for violating big momma's civil rights. Yes, you have a civil right to threaten to beat the bubblegum out of someone if they diss your daughter.

In the final analysis, introducing a firearm into this scenario -- while probably legal -- was a very stupid thing to do. YMMV.

 

[American123]

Had a discussion with a guy yesterday who was telling me he can never make it down to the gun shop to pick up his online purchases so he sends his wife down to fill out the 4473 for him. I told him yeah, thats a great way to get rid of her. Then I had to explain straw purchases and felonies and stuff like that. It was a dull conversation.

In Washington, family members can buy/gift/give firearms to each other infinitum, that wouldn't fall under the classification of straw purchase, that is of course assuming that the man isn't a felon using his wife to obtain firearms.

 

[powermad]

Seems there's a lot blame being placed on the victims for being stupid, ignorant, etc.... Sometimes people end up in situations they 100% do not want to be in (like needing gas at that hour at that location). I would rather fill up at a well lit, albeit sketchy gas station than run out of gas a few blocks up the road where the situation may be way worse. Could they have made better choices to avoid that whole situation? Sure, but ultimately they were the victims and being called stupid because a group of thieves robbed them while they were just going about their business kinda pisses me off.

WWID? Once boxed in they were phlucked..... Once my wife backed into the vehicle that was strategically placed behind us, I would have had my wife stay in the car (getting out was not the best choice), lock the doors, then I would have called 911 on speaker phone and like @Knobgoblin suggested would state that I'm surrounded by a group of angry people, being held against my will and in fear for my life. I would then make sure I could quickly retrieve my firearm without actually brandishing it. Hopefully they'd get the picture and leave.

When it was Union Ave everyone knew not to be South of Columbia Blvd after dark.
Nothing but the street name has changed in decades so it's nothing new.
If the daily gunfire isn't enough of a reason to not be there in the day time....
A few weeks ago a bus driver caught one in the chest through the windshield from those clowns slinging lead at each other.

While it would be nice to go and do what you please without being assaulted, there are some places where that isn't a likely outcome and it is best to avoid if all possible.
There are many times I need to stop at a mini mart for something and pass up more than a few and go out of my way to stop somewhere that I don't need someone providing cover fire with a belt fed MG to get a bottle of Gatorade or cup of coffee.

But I've also been known not to be taking a selfie next to a Grizzly with a PBJ sandwich in my hand so there is that.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

My further thoughts....

It don't matter what you do.

You will be judged , second guessed , critiqued etc...as well as you , yourself being painted with a broad bush and in a certain light.

After all ...here we are on a gun forum , where we share a common interest...and we have many different views of what to do , what happened , even the very merits of the original post.

Just think of what will happen to you , out in the real world , where there are many folks do not like guns or gun owners.

Do what you need to do to survive the encounter...do your best to stay within legal methods / means while doing this.
Do what you can to avoid trouble.
Andy

That is what it's all about. Situational awareness. Sorry, I'm not getting off the freeway on Martin Luther King blvd. at night. Period. I grew up in Detroit (the big one in Michigan, not the little one in Oregon), and for us it was Rosa Parks Blvd. You just didn't go there. On the West Side. On the East Side, it's Mack Ave.. You just DON'T. Be smart. Be aware. Have your head on a swivel.

 

[RedRover]

A bunch of whiners in this thread bubbleguming about MSM and such. Take a Midol.

It's really fairly simple. What I was taught at a fairly young age... If it's gotten to the point that I'm drawing down on someone, then I've come to the decision that my life is in immediate danger and deadly force is warranted. Once the sights are on target, the trigger is getting pulled. AKA -- "Never point your firearm at anything that you don't intend to destroy".

Zimmerman was a wannabe-cop that stalked a teenager doing absolutely nothing wrong; while walking home from a store to buy skittles. In reality, where was Martin's right to stand his ground; perhaps feeling that his life was being threatened by this random adult unjustifiably stepping to him in the dark?

The couple in Michigan was surely being set-up to be a viral "look at the racists" video. They obviously were trying to leave, and were not the instigators. Did they deserve to have their whole lives cancel-cultured and be facing any serious jail-time? Absolutely not, but they still F'ed up by unlawfully brandishing their firearms, and they deserve some consequences.

Likewise the guy in Portland(Strickland?) that was getting pursued by Antifa protestors also F'ed up. SEE: One doesn't point their gun at someone, unless they plan on firing.

Rittenhouse, also an aspiring-cop(acceptable at his young age FWIW) thought he was doing the right thing in protecting his community. Age is simply a number. Plenty of 17 y.o. kids have paid the ultimate price serving this country. I personally see Rittenhouse as justified in his use of self-defense. This reasoning comes from the fact that he didn't initiate any of the confrontations, rather he was being pursued and attacked by violent adult felons.

 

[American123]

A bunch of whiners in this thread bubbleguming about MSM and such. Take a Midol.

It's really fairly simple. What I was taught at a fairly young age... If it's gotten to the point that I'm drawing down on someone, then I've come to the decision that my life is in immediate danger and deadly force is warranted. Once the sights are on target, the trigger is getting pulled. AKA -- "Never point your firearm at anything that you don't intend to destroy".

Zimmerman was a wannabe-cop that stalked a teenager doing absolutely nothing wrong; while walking home from a store to buy skittles. In reality, where was Martin's right to stand his ground; perhaps feeling that his life was being threatened by this random adult unjustifiably stepping to him in the dark?

The couple in Michigan was surely being set-up to be a viral "look at the racists" video. They obviously were trying to leave, and were not the instigators. Did they deserve to have their whole lives cancel-cultured and be facing any serious jail-time? Absolutely not, but they still F'ed up by unlawfully brandishing their firearms, and they deserve some consequences.

Likewise the guy in Portland(Strickland?) that was getting pursued by Antifa protestors also F'ed up. SEE: One doesn't point their gun at someone, unless they plan on firing.

Rittenhouse, also an aspiring-cop(acceptable at his young age FWIW) thought he was doing the right thing in protecting his community. Age is simply a number. Plenty of 17 y.o. kids have paid the ultimate price serving this country. I personally see Rittenhouse as justified in his use of self-defense. This reasoning comes from the fact that he didn't initiate any of the confrontations, rather he was being pursued and attacked by violent adult felons.

In regards to Zimmerman, until he was getting his head smashed into the pavement by Martin, there was no illegal activity that had taken place. When Martin was on top of Zimmerman smashing his head into the pavement, it allowed for a legal and justified use of deadly force.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

A bunch of whiners in this thread bubbleguming about MSM and such. Take a Midol.

It's really fairly simple. What I was taught at a fairly young age... If it's gotten to the point that I'm drawing down on someone, then I've come to the decision that my life is in immediate danger and deadly force is warranted. Once the sights are on target, the trigger is getting pulled. AKA -- "Never point your firearm at anything that you don't intend to destroy".

Zimmerman was a wannabe-cop that stalked a teenager doing absolutely nothing wrong; while walking home from a store to buy skittles. In reality, where was Martin's right to stand his ground; perhaps feeling that his life was being threatened by this random adult unjustifiably stepping to him in the dark?

The couple in Michigan was surely being set-up to be a viral "look at the racists" video. They obviously were trying to leave, and were not the instigators. Did they deserve to have their whole lives cancel-cultured and be facing any serious jail-time? Absolutely not, but they still F'ed up by unlawfully brandishing their firearms, and they deserve some consequences.

Likewise the guy in Portland(Strickland?) that was getting pursued by Antifa protestors also F'ed up. SEE: One doesn't point their gun at someone, unless they plan on firing.

Rittenhouse, also an aspiring-cop(acceptable at his young age FWIW) thought he was doing the right thing in protecting his community. Age is simply a number. Plenty of 17 y.o. kids have paid the ultimate price serving this country. I personally see Rittenhouse as justified in his use of self-defense. This reasoning comes from the fact that he didn't initiate any of the confrontations, rather he was being pursued and attacked by violent adult felons.

The laws of Michigan and Oregon are different, however. In Oregon, brandishing is a criminal offense (though it is not called that in the statute). So the senior citizen who brandished and was drawn on by the cops in Salem likely committed the offense of menacing under Oregon statute. In Michigan, it is not a criminal offense to brandish a weapon if you can meet the threshold in the law. The Michigan couple did not commit criminal offenses if they can articulate a reasonable fear of great bodily harm. The black mother saying "I'll beat yo (sic) white a$$" will probably aid significantly in that claim. That doesn't mean their actions weren't incredibly stupid. And they have suffered consequences: They were both fired from their jobs, have now had their right to a speedy trial taken from them and are unable to leave the state of Michigan as a condition of their bond. They and their four children are probably going to lose their house and everything they own. And the black mother who issued a terroristic threat, racial intimidation, and unlawful confinement? Well, of course she's a hero for standing up to these white supremacists with guns. While you deny that media bias is relevant to this topic...

 

[coop44]

Add this to any statement to 911 "....and I THINK he/she has a GUN!!!!!" Police never turn down a chance for a gunfight!

 

[RedRover]

The laws of Michigan and Oregon are different, however. In Oregon, brandishing is a criminal offense (though it is not called that in the statute). So the senior citizen who brandished and was drawn on by the cops in Salem likely committed the offense of menacing under Oregon statute. In Michigan, it is not a criminal offense to brandish a weapon if you can meet the threshold in the law. The Michigan couple did not commit criminal offenses if they can articulate a reasonable fear of great bodily harm. The black mother saying "I'll beat yo (sic) white a$$" will probably aid significantly in that claim. That doesn't mean their actions weren't incredibly stupid. And they have suffered consequences: They were both fired from their jobs, have now had their right to a speedy trial taken from them and are unable to leave the state of Michigan as a condition of their bond. They and their four children are probably going to lose their house and everything they own. And the black mother who issued a terroristic threat, racial intimidation, and unlawful confinement? Well, of course she's a hero for standing up to these white supremacists with guns. While you deny that media bias is relevant to this topic...

I absolutely agree with you about the couple in Michigan. The black mother ought to be brought up on 'hate-crime' charges if the law was to be applied equally.

As for the media.. I stopped giving two bubblegums about a bunch of paid talking-heads giving their opinions under the guise of 'news' a long time ago.

I prefer to control what I can control.

 

[Knobgoblin]

I absolutely agree with you about the couple in Michigan. The black mother ought to be brought up on 'hate-crime' charges if the law was to be applied equally.

As for the media.. I stopped giving two bubblegums about a bunch of paid talking-heads giving their opinions under the guise of 'news' a long time ago.

I prefer to control what I can control.

If laws are ever equally applied, we're going to be living in a world I don't understand. Lol

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

I absolutely agree with you about the couple in Michigan. The black mother ought to be brought up on 'hate-crime' charges if the law was to be applied equally.

100%. We both know that will never happen. The black woman would have been charged by now. Not happening.

This couple will lose everything and might avoid prison. But still they will have lost everything. But: Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

As for the media.. I stopped giving two bubblegums about a bunch of paid talking-heads giving their opinions under the guise of 'news' a long time ago.

I prefer to control what I can control.

Fair enough. Reasonable people can disagree. However, the party that controls the message controls, well, everything. Whether you can control that message or not, you can push back with rational, logical arguments (and from what I've observed on this forum, you do). We've got something like eight million new fellow gun owners in our midst as of late. I think it is incumbent on us to do our best to leverage that new interest in firearms to our benefit. YMMV.

 

[RedRover]

In regards to Zimmerman, until he was getting his head smashed into the pavement by Martin, there was no illegal activity that had taken place. When Martin was on top of Zimmerman smashing his head into the pavement, it allowed for a legal and justified use of deadly force.

Not if Zimmerman was the initial instigator. Nobody really knows for sure that no illegal activity had taken place. We do know that Martin was on the phone telling people that some sketchy guy was chasing him. The cops told him(Zimmerman) that "they didn't need him to do that".

Was it proven that Zimmerman did not make the first physical contact? He was the only (visual)witness that survived. All that is known is that a violent encounter occurred.

Zimmerman is a POS w/ violent tendencies. His criminal history before and since the trial confirmed that.

It's my opinion that he should have gone down for manslaughter. He is not the type of poster-boy I would want to promote as being a responsible CCW holder, nor as a justifiable self-defense with a firearm.

It's water well under the bridge now, and I'd rather not bother with rehashing it much more.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

Not if Zimmerman was the initial instigator. Nobody really knows for sure that no illegal activity had taken place. We do know that Martin was on the phone telling people that some sketchy guy was chasing him. The cops told him(Zimmerman) that "they didn't need him to do that".

Was it proven that Zimmerman did not make the first physical contact? He was the only (visual)witness that survived. All that is known is that a violent encounter occurred.

Zimmerman is a POS w/ violent tendencies. His criminal history before and since the trial confirmed that.

It's my opinion that he should have gone down for manslaughter. He is not the type of poster-boy I would want to promote as being a responsible CCW holder, nor as a justifiable self-defense with a firearm.

It's water well under the bridge now, and I'd rather not bother with rehashing it much more.

Yeah, Zimmerman -- or as I call him: Paul Blart, Mall Cop -- got what he deserved. It was obvious he was looking for a fight that night.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

That is what it's all about. Situational awareness. Sorry, I'm not getting off the freeway on Martin Luther King blvd. at night. Period. I grew up in Detroit (the big one in Michigan, not the little one in Oregon), and for us it was Rosa Parks Blvd. You just didn't go there. On the West Side. On the East Side, it's Mack Ave.. You just DON'T. Be smart. Be aware. Have your head on a swivel.

Not really what my post was about....not disagreeing with you ....just not what my post , which was quoted was really about.

My point in that particular post was :

No matter what you do or say in such situation , you will be judged , second guessed and the like...by everyone.
Just re-read this thread and see how folks that have a common interest are doing this...and imagine how many more , who may not have such a common interest , will do so , outside of this forum.

My post was more of something to consider , than anything else.
Andy

 

[billdeserthills]

Kyle Rittenhouse illegally obtained a firearm then illegally carried that illegal gun across state lines to a protest and got himself in trouble with that illegal firearm . If your for legal proper gun ownership you cannot get on the internet and defend that kids actions it's no different than a felon obtaining an forearm illegally .

It appears your definition of illegality really depends on which story you read these days

Kyle Rittenhouse 'Did Not Carry A Gun Across State Lines,' Attorney L. Lin Wood Says - Jellyfish.NEWS

Chris Menahan InformationLiberation Attorney L Lin Wood said Friday on Twitter that Kyle Rittenhouse “did not carry a gun across state lines” and warned…

johnbwellsnews.com

One thing is clear, if Kyle hadn't had a gun with him at the time he needed one, he would be dead by now & chalked up as just another victim by BLM/Antifa

 

[billdeserthills]

My takeaway from this incident is it's always a lot cheaper & less trouble to simply say those two little words-- 'I'm sorry' & it really takes nothing away from you to do so