Hippies get a gun pulled on them

[Apophis]

If this has already been posted, or is in the wrong section of the forum, feel free to do whatever is deemed necessary mods.

Mod note: Vulgar languasge used in video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuTC1Jk9h8Q" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm not arguing on one side or the other, just seeing if anyone has seen this video and would like to discuss this issue.

[Scott in Houston]

I cannot comment because it's hard to be objective when "hippies" or "activists" are involved.

But... I will give what I admit may be a biased opinion is that:

1) If the guy was assaulted by the hippy, he ended the situation. The chase ended and the threat ended. (with the caveat of #3 below)
2) Chasing someone down is a good way to get shot... right or wrong, that's an outcome only a moron would fail to consider
3) The guy being chased should have called 911 and stayed in his car. He was also at fault and was way too agitated. If he's going to carry, he better learn "9-1-1" and how to calm himself.

[Apophis]

I cannot comment because it's hard to be objective when "hippies" or "activists" are involved.

But... I will give what I admit may be a biased opinion is that:

1) If the guy was assaulted by the hippy, he ended the situation. The chase ended and the threat ended. (with the caveat of #3 below)
2) Chasing someone down is a good way to get shot... right or wrong, that's an outcome only a moron would fail to consider
3) The guy being chased should have called 911 and stayed in his car. He was also at fault and was way too agitated. If he's going to carry, he better learn "9-1-1" and how to calm himself.

Agreed.

[McKnife]

Illinois hippies.... I HATE Illinois hippies.

[Skaven]

Illinois hippies.... I HATE Illinois hippies.

I hate em too but isn't this in PA?

[McKnife]

Illinois hippies.... I HATE Illinois hippies.

I hate em too but isn't this in PA?

The "protest" and attack on the "Innocent Intimidator" occurred in PA, but the ridiculous SHARK organization is in IL. Yes, I actually wasted 5 minutes of my life learning more about these weirdos.

[Dave2]

I cannot comment because it's hard to be objective when "hippies" or "activists" are involved.

So true... The funny thing is that I might support some of them, if their members weren't so obnoxious about pushing their agendas. (Incidentally, this is why I don't have any bumper stickers on my car. In my experience, nobody ever pays attention to them unless you've done something you shouldn't have, so you just end up making your favorite <whatever> look bad.)

3) The guy being chased should have called 911 and stayed in his car. [...]

Maybe he thought an attack was imminent, and was trying to have the fight on his terms. Assuming a cell phone was available, he or his passenger could've called as soon as they realized they were being followed, though. Or, if he's familiar with the area, driven to the nearest police station.

[Skaven]

Couple of things that I didn't like about the handling of the situation. The guy was talking with his gun, did you see him point it at his passenger telling him to call the cops? not good gun control. He could have talked his way out without drawing. If he was truly in fear of his life, drawing it as he did will do nothing but get it knocked out of his hand. Not to mention he didn't even have a good holster for it. I admit that both the hippies and the guy were wrong for the situation, I feel that the people that were truly wrong were the innocent bystanders that were endangered from their stunt driving.

[steveincowtown]

As much distain as I have for people who harass others in this manner, I would have to say the gentlemen with the gun certainly “provoked” the other person by stopping his vehicle and walking at a fast pace towards them; IMHO the ability to defuse situations like this is just as important as carrying the right gun, and the right ammo. I think in Texas he would have an uphill battle to prove he was justified.

"PC §9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection
(b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the
degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary
to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of
unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately
necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable
if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom
the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to
enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle,
or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to
remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation,
vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping,
murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery,
or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used;

[alvins]

so they are following him because he shoots pigeons? good riddance.

[Dave2]

As much distain as I have for people who harass others in this manner, I would have to say the gentlemen with the gun certainly “provoked” the other person by stopping his vehicle and walking at a fast pace towards them; IMHO the ability to defuse situations like this is just as important as carrying the right gun, and the right ammo. I think in Texas he would have an uphill battle to prove he was justified.

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used;

Oh, totally. I could see an argument being made that really there was just one "fight" split into two parts, and the hippies didn't start recording until the intermission because otherwise it would have shown them to be the aggressors, but I think that'd be a hard sell. <shrug> If it doesn't go to trial, I guess we'll never know for sure.

[Skaven]

As much distain as I have for people who harass others in this manner, I would have to say the gentlemen with the gun certainly “provoked” the other person by stopping his vehicle and walking at a fast pace towards them; IMHO the ability to defuse situations like this is just as important as carrying the right gun, and the right ammo. I think in Texas he would have an uphill battle to prove he was justified.

"PC §9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection
(b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the
degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary
to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of
unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately
necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable
if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom
the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to
enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle,
or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to
remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation,
vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping,
murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery,
or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used;

Only problem is that this did not occur in Texas, so the PC doesn't matter. It would fall under the jurisdiction of the PC in PA. And I'm sot sure exactly what that is.

[steveincowtown]

I think in Texas he would have an uphill battle to prove he was justified.[/b]

Correct, it didn't occur in Texas, but if it was here he would have a hard time proving he did not "provoke" if charged with a crime.

[Keith B]

I think he was totally in the wrong. What he SHOULD have done is called the police and advised that there was a vehicle aggressively following him and that he was in fear for his safety. He should have let them video whatever they wanted to, but he should have lead the protesters right into the police's hands. If he had to stop and they approached his car, THEN he might have been justified in threatening the use of deadly force. But, HE was the one that got out of his vehicle and went back to their car, so he was now the aggressor IMO and lost his right to protect himself at that level. Also, the language used is very inflammatory on his part and would not look good if they use the video for trial. Basically, they succeeded in baiting him into the confrontation.

Bottom line, always let the other make the aggressive moves and YOU be the one that shows you were cool, calm and collected and only doing what you had to to protect and defend yourself. When and if it comes around to trial it will be much more in your favor.

[Ameer]

Bottom line, always let the other make the aggressive moves and YOU be the one that shows you were cool, calm and collected and only doing what you had to to protect and defend yourself. When and if it comes around to trial it will be much more in your favor.

The escalation on both sides reminds me of the Calderon shooting. viewtopic.php?f=7&t=32380" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;