Pulling a gun on a unarmed assailant?

Status
Not open for further replies.
JEEPERGEO - " ... Letting him shake your hand could have been a fatal mistake. ..."
Click to expand...

That is true. In an adversarial situation, you should never allow the other person to grasp your hand. If he chooses, he has you in an awkward and dangerous position.

You do not have to shake hands with some nut case who has just been screaming threats at you.

Back off and watch the guy closely.

L.W.
 
I've been in a situation where this was not so easy to do in practice. I stopped at a remote overlook to let my wife feed & change the baby. They were in the backseat, engine running to keep the A/C blasting on a 100+ day. I walked down to the river, where I noticed a gang-banger thug making tracks to my car. I was a little closer, so I got there before he did. I grabbed my 1911 from under the seat, spun around to see him standing in front of me. He threw up his hands, said he didn't want any trouble, and took off.

Yes, I profiled him. Yes, he MAY have not been intending to jack my car with my wife and baby in the backseat. All I know is that he didn't, and I'm good with erring on the side of caution. My only mistake was in not calling the police; if he had been acting innocently, I might have been the one face down in a felony stop.
Click to expand...

From your description of this incident, it sure sounds like it was NOT an "innocent" incident! "Profiling" keeps innocent people alive, IMO.

I have the right to make judgements in my mind of other people and prepare myself to deal with them accordingly, and I don't care who gets all butthurt about being "unfairly judged". If I think someone looks like they might be a threat to me, you can bet I'm going to go on high alert until proven otherwise.

High alert doesn't mean I'll automatically draw my weapon.

Drawing my weapon doesn't mean automatically pointing it, I'll draw to low ready first if at all possible.

Pointing my weapon doesn't mean I'll automatically fire either. I'll always give a chance for the situation to de-escalate first.

I'm not eager to shoot anybody, but I'm not going to be injured or killed by anybody either if I can help it. What's that old quote about the Marines - "be polite and courteous to everyone, but always have a plan to kill them"? Something like that.
 
Posted by Drail:
It is not possible to determine if someone has a weapon by simply looking at them but if someone threatens you (or your loved ones) and you are in fear of your life it really doesn't matter if you "think" they are armed or not.
Click to expand...
"Fear" would not cut it, unless your fear was reasonable, which would be determined by others, after the fact, based on the evidence and testimony available, admitted, and known to you at the time.

Should you use deadly force, it would matter a great deal what you thought regarding that someone's ability to kill or maim, and why. Facts supporting a reason for your belief that the person had been armed would be the best possible defense.

You must stop that threat.
Click to expand...
Or get away from it.
 
Why did you stand their . I would have just went back to house . Of course when I get up and put pants on .I an at that point armed with a pistol and knife. . No reason to stand and listen to some nut run his mouth and wave a fist .
 
when someone threatened to break my Face, their intentions are clear. I would not hesitate to draw my weapon. At what point is a broken face lethal? I wont give anyone the chance to tell me what they are going to do and then allow them to do it.
 
In this day and age, carrying body cameras is becoming more and more feasible every day.. If the entire encounter is on video, it would be hard for perpetrators (especially multiple) to make up a story that contradicts an actual video recording of the episode. Viable video recordings do have a way of debunking any false testimony. Considering the risks and legal battles you will face in any defensive shooting, I think body cameras may become a very important asset to anybody who carries a weapon. With modern technology, they are becoming smaller, lighter and cheaper to deploy.
 
Last edited:
MICHAEL T said:
...I an at that point armed with a pistol and knife. . No reason to stand and listen to some nut run his mouth and wave a fist . . .
Click to expand...
No, you can leave. But just mouthing off and waving a fist will not necessarily justify threatening someone with a lethal weapon.

Basically displaying a weapon defensively is a matter of of legal justification.

The usual definition of assault, based on the Common Law is:
an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.
Click to expand...

In the laws of some States this crime might be given another name. For example, in Alabama it's called "menacing." But by whatever name it is called, it is a crime in every State.

So a display of a firearm, when done for the purposes of intimidation, or to secure compliance, or to convince someone to keep his distance, or in response to a perceived threat is, in all States, an assault of some type. You are effectively putting someone in fear of an imminent harmful or offensive contact, i. e., getting shot.

Now in all States it will be a defense against a charge of assault (or any similar crime) if you establish that your assault satisfied the applicable legal standard for justification.

In most States the standard for justifying a threat of lethal force is the same as for justifying the use of lethal force in self defense. In a few, it's a somewhat lesser standard. So in all States if you threaten lethal force you will need to be able to at least show prima facie such threat was legally justified, that is if you want to avoid a conviction for assault.

"Mouthing off and waving a fist" doesn't automatically raise to a level of a threat justifying a threatening display of a lethal weapon. The circumstances must demonstrate that a reasonable person would consider the angry words and gesticulations to reflect a credible threat and an intet to cause one serious injury. And that's going to work in the case of, for example, an unusually frail 85 year old angrily shouting and gesturing at the high school football star who almost knocked him down in a crosswalk.

See the thread: "Brandishing", and "When Can I Draw"?
 
What Part is the physical; threat " IM going to break your face " did you not read, or understand?
As I said and seemed to be glossed over... when someone announces their intent to do yo0 bodily harm, and a fear of that threat is imminent, then you have the right to defend yourself. You do not have to wait until the guy actually " Breaks your face before you react. when someone threatens you, you have no idea as to how far that threat may go..
You would have to be an idiot to suggest that someone has the right to defend themself only after the guy throws a lethal punch or assault. Usually one punch escalates the adrenalin. No one has the right to assault you verbally, but far worse is the actual verbal threat of specific damage. " I'm going the break your face ".
A single punch could cause a heart attack, or do permanent damage, so allowing someone to actually have put their hands on you, before you can defend yourself from any harm is ludacris.
 
Evil-Twin said:
What Part is the physical; threat " IM going to break your face " did you not read, or understand?
As I said and seemed to be glossed over... when someone announces their intent to do yo0 bodily harm, and a fear of that threat is imminent, then you have the right to defend yourself. You do not have to wait until the guy actually " Breaks your face before you react. when someone threatens you, you have no idea as to how far that threat may go..
You would have to be an idiot to suggest that someone has the right to defend themself only after the guy throws a lethal punch or assault. Usually one punch escalates the adrenalin. No one has the right to assault you verbally, but far worse is the actual verbal threat of specific damage. " I'm going the break your face ".
A single punch could cause a heart attack, or do permanent damage, so allowing someone to actually have put their hands on you, before you can defend yourself from any harm is ludacris.
Click to expand...
It comes down to proving your life was threatened in court.. Our legal system sucks and even though we feel that some scumbag making a violent threat is justified for a use of force in "self-defense", it is the jury you have to convince with the current Federal and State laws that you will be subject to. There is plenty of instances of assailants who have been killed in a confrontation, even pounding the crap out of somebody and the person who defended themselves still being incriminated or having a hell of a time proving their innocence (or that they were not guilty, LOL).
 
Our legal system sucks
Click to expand...
...but there don't seem to be any better ones in existence and it does it's job pretty well all things considered. What "sucks" in many of our minds, is that one doesn't get their hand shaken and a pat on the back for shooting a "bad guy" automatically. And what sucks is that doing the RIGHT THING can mean you end up broke or in jail.

As we often say, shooting someone is the SECOND (maybe third?) worst outcome of a violent encounter, just shortly behind dying at the hands of a criminal. If you are FORCED to draw and shoot someone, you are having almost the worst day you could have, and your life is now going to change in very bad ways. Even if things "go right."

Many people kill others. Many are found to be justified in that action. Many are not. Nobody wears a halo -- or at least none anybody else can see -- nobody is the "good guy" just because he thinks of himself that way. Many circumstances end up where both sides of a lethal force encounter thought they were "the good guy." Many men or women who had a legitimate reason to fear for his or her life, still broke the law in inexcusable ways in how s/he went about "defending" himself or herself.

Law enforcement and the courts are constructed so that society can figure out who acted within the confines of the law and who did not. That is an expensive and lengthy process because it is WORTH it.

But you DO NOT want to be inside it if there's any way to avoid that.
... and even though we feel that some scumbag making a violent threat is justified for a use of force in "self-defense", it is the jury you have to convince with the current Federal and State laws that you will be subject to.
Click to expand...
A jury, sometimes. Sometimes just the responding/investigating officers and the DA. Not every case is prosecuted. One of the goals of our debates and all this haranguing here in ST&T is to help folks understand how they need to think about guns and social interactions that is most likely to keep them from ever seeing:

a) Another person in front of their gun barrel; and
b) The inside of a responding officer's squad car; and
c) The inside of a police interrogation room; and ... failing all that...
d) the inside of a court room; AND ... and if they DO end up there,
e) Their self-defense plea rejected by a jury.

There is plenty of instances of assailants who have been killed in a confrontation, even pounding the crap out of somebody and the person who defended themselves still being incriminated or having a hell of a time proving their innocence (or that they were not guilty, LOL).
Click to expand...
Worth repeating: You don't argue "not guilty" in a self defense case. That wouldn't make any sense, unless you're going to claim you DIDN'T shoot the "bad guy" after all. And that would be a real bad idea. You're going to plea GUILTY, with an "AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE" (affirmative meaning, "YES, your Honor, I did it!") by necessity of Self Defense. In other words, "I'm guilty of the act, but I should be exonerated of blame and punishment because the law excuses that act in my situation. ... AND HERE'S MY PROOF."

A lot of people tend to think of the old maxim, "guilty until proven innocent," and that the "burden of proof is on the prosecution." In a self defense case, neither of those things is true. You're going to admit guilt and then it is on YOU to PROVE your case as to why you had to do that thing, and that the law's exemptions apply to what you did.
 
denton said:
Here in Utah [... w]e had a case here not long ago, where a guy was unarmed, seriously drunk, and banging furiously on a homeowner's door (wrong house, apparently). He then went around to the back and banged on the sliding glass patio door hard enough to break it in. When he entered the house, the homeowner shot him. No charges filed. FWIW, I would not have fired because I would not feel my life to be in danger, and it's easier to fix a patio door than deal with the legal system.
Click to expand...
Here in California at that moment someone not a member of your household "unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence" you automatically get the presumption of having been in fear for your life.
 
IM 70 years old...I live in the open carry Stae O Pennsylvania and If someone threatens me or my family with physical intent, Ill take my chances with the legal system, I wont allow some low life to scare me off my rights.. those who feel threatened by the legal system should sell their guns, and throw away their Carry License... I've been licensed to carry for 55 years, I've drawn my weapon twice in those 55 years, IM still here and non the worse for wear... If accosted again, I wont hesitate to draw and fire... the worst thing about this forum is for anyone to second guess their right to protect themself... some here put the fear of repercussions form the legal system to sway their judgment. If you have to second guess yourself over your personal protection, you need to do some serious thinking about your right to bare arms and defend yourself. The right to stand your ground, and no you don't have to turn your back on a threat and run away.
 
Evergreen said:
...even though we feel that some scumbag making a violent threat is justified for a use of force in "self-defense", it is the jury you have to convince with the current Federal and State laws that you will be subject to.....
Click to expand...
Welcome to real life in the real world. That's not going to be changing any time soon. In fact, it's been like that for hundreds of years.

Let's look at the basic legal reality of the threat or use of force in self defense.

  1. Our society takes a dim view of threatening to use force against, or the use of force and/or intentionally hurting or killing another human. In every State threatening to use force or the use of force and/or intentionally hurting or killing another human is prima facie (on its face) a crime of one sort or another.

    • However, for hundreds of years our law has recognized that there are some circumstances in which such an intentional act of violence (or a threat) against another human might be legally justified.

    • Exactly what would be necessary to establish that violence against someone else was justified will depend on (1) the applicable law where the event takes place; and (2) exactly what happened and how it happened, which will have to be judged on the basis of evidence gathered after the fact.

    • Someone who initiated a conflict will almost never be able to legally justify an act of violence against another.

  2. The amount of force an actor may justifiably use in self defense will depend on the level of the threat.

    • Under the laws of most States, lethal force, or the threat of such force, may be justified when a reasonable person in like circumstance would conclude that a use of lethal force is necessary to prevent the otherwise unavoidable, imminent death or grave bodily injury to an innocent. And to establish that, the actor claiming justified use of lethal force would need to show that the person against whom the lethal force was used reasonably had --

      • Ability, i. e., the power to deliver force sufficient to cause death or grave bodily harm;

      • Opportunity, i. e., the assailant was capable of immediately deploying such force; and

      • put an innocent in Jeopardy, i. e., the assailant was acting in such a manner that a reasonable and prudent person would conclude that he had the intent to kill or cripple.

    • "Ability" doesn't necessarily require a weapon. Disparity of force, e. g., a large, young, strong person attacking a small, old, frail person, or force of numbers, could show "Ability."

    • "Opportunity" could be established by showing proximity, lack of barriers or the like.

    • "Jeopardy" (intent) could be inferred from overt acts (e. g., violent approach) and/or statements of intent.

    • And unless the standard justifying the threat or use of lethal force is met, use of some lesser level of violence might be legally justified to prevent a harmful or offensive, unconsented to contact by another person.

  3. If you have thus threatened or used violence against another person, your actions will be investigated as a crime, because on the surface that's what it is.

    • Sometimes there will be sufficient evidence concerning what happened and how it happened readily apparent to the police for the police and/or prosecutor to quickly conclude that your actions were justified. If that's the case, you will be quickly exonerated of criminal responsibility, although in many States you might have to still deal with a civil suit.

    • If the evidence is not clear, you may well be arrested and perhaps even charged with a criminal offense. If that happens you will need to affirmatively assert that you were defending yourself and put forth evidence that you at least prima facie satisfied the applicable standard justifying your act of violence.

    • Of course, if your threat or use of force against another human took place in or immediately around your home, your justification for your use of violence could be more readily apparent or easier to establish -- maybe.

      • Again, it still depends on what happened and how it happened. For example, was the person you shot a stranger, an acquaintance, a friend, a business associate or relative? Did the person you shot forcibly break into your home or was he invited? Was the contact tumultuous from the beginning, or did things begin peaceably and turn violent, how and why?

      • In the case of a stranger forcibly breaking into your home, your justification for the use of lethal force would probably be obvious. The laws of most States provide some useful protections for someone attacked in his home, which protections make it easier and a more certain matter for your acts to be found justified.

      • It could however be another matter to establish your justification if you have to use force against someone you invited into your home in a social context which later turns violent.

      • It could also be another matter if you left the safety of your house to confront someone on your property.

  4. Good, general overviews of the topic can be found in this booklet by Marty Hayes at the Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network.

Several years ago a lawyer by the name of Lisa Steele wrote an excellent article for lawyers on defending a self defense case. The article was entitled "Defending a Self Defense Case" and published in the March, 2007, edition of the journal of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, The Champion. It was republished in four parts, with permission, on the website, Truth About Guns. The article as republished can be read here: Part 1; Part 2; Part 3; and Part 4.

As Ms. Steele explains the unique character of a self defense case in Part 1 (emphasis added):
...Self-defense is all-or-nothing. In order to establish it, the client has to admit being at the crime scene, with a weapon, which he or she used to intentionally harm the aggressor. The client has to admit that he injured the aggressor. The client has to convince the jury that if a reasonable person had been standing in his shoes, the reasonable person would have done the same thing. In effect, the aggressor invited his fate by threatening or inflicting serious bodily harm, or by threatening to kill the client.

In one fell swoop, the client has given up alibi and mistaken identity defenses. He or she has given up any claim that the wound was made by accident. Generally, the client must give up provocation (heat of passion or extreme emotional disturbance). Logically, provocation implies an unreasonable response to a situation, and mitigates murder to manslaughter. Self-defense implies a rational response to a very dangerous situation and, if successful, results in an acquittal. Similarly, the client must give up claims of mental illness or insanity and defenses based on intoxication or drug use....
Click to expand...
 
Posted by Evil-Twin:
when someone threatened to break my Face, their intentions are clear.
Click to expand...
That should satisfy the condition of jeopardy. There would remain the questions of ability, opportunity, and preclusion.

I would not hesitate to draw my weapon.
Click to expand...
You should think very seriously before doing so.

You do not have to wait until the guy actually " Breaks your face before you react.
Click to expand...
True fact.

A single punch could cause a heart attack, or do permanent damage,...
Click to expand...
Yes, it could, but that does not mean that the treat of a punch would constitute a threat of deadly force or serious bodily harm.

... Ill take my chances with the legal system, I wont allow some low life to scare me off my rights..
... I've been licensed to carry for 55 years, I've drawn my weapon twice in those 55 years, IM still here and non the worse for wear... If accosted again, I wont hesitate to draw and fire... ... some here put the fear of repercussions form the legal system to sway their judgment.
Click to expand...
A conviction for a felony would result in a number of bad things.

Among them would be the loss of your right to ever possess a firearm again.
 
MICHAEL T said:
Why did you stand their . I would have just went back to house . Of course when I get up and put pants on .I an at that point armed with a pistol and knife. . No reason to stand and listen to some nut run his mouth and wave a fist .
Click to expand...
It's so easy when you're not there. To go back in the house I would have had to turn my back on this nut, and that wasn't going to happen. And don't think dry level ground. I would need to climb icey steps.
 
IN States where stand your ground law is in effect, that Law was written for a reason. That reason is to protect the rights of an innocent victim. The Law has weight in the legal system. Most law abiding citizens do not want confrontation. What most carry citizens want is the right to protect themself, and have a chance against the threat from a criminal.
Career criminals can spot a victim from a distance. Usually a person carries themself in confident manner, head up shoulders back and " Eye Contact " when protected by a carry license and an EDC. A victim walks in the shadows, tries to make them self small, head down not wanting to have eye contact because it only shows fear, when they find themself in a questionable area, or position.

A bad guy would think twice when singling out a victim... who would he choose in the above two cases?
The best thing about having an EDC, is the confidence it gives you in having a " Chance "
No one want to shoot anyone. There is something known as " presence " is a body language trait. Most who carry, have this presence... to some criminals, this presence may not be a deterrent, but Ill take, " having a chance ", any day ... over becoming an unarmed victim.
 
One other thought

The term: unarmed assailant.
A person is an assailant when he bares a threat of force. if someone posses the potential ability to harm you, and uses that potential ability to threaten you, rob you or intimidate you, its the potential harm, that makes him a threat to your safety and life.
There is no black and white, clear cut assessment of an assailant. If the assailant puts you in a position of fear of life, armed or unarmed, that meets the necessary conditions to defend yourself. The idea is not to shoot and kill someone , but simply to stop the threat. If they are killed in a successful attempt to protect yourself, then its unfortunate, but justified.
 
Evil-Twin said:
IN States where stand your ground law is in effect, that Law was written for a reason. That reason is to protect the rights of an innocent victim. The Law has weight in the legal system....
Click to expand...
Not exactly right.

At Common Law, one could not justify using force in self defense unless he could show that he could not safely retreat (except in his home). That can be difficult to establish.

With Stand Your Ground laws someone claiming self defense to justify an intentional act of violence against another human doesn't have to show that he couldn't retreat safely. While that helps, someone claiming self defense must still put on evidence establishing the other elements of justification.

As far as being an innocent victim, you're not the one who decides that. That will be decided by the prosecutor and/or a grand jury and/or (if you're unlucky) the jury at your trial.

For a more detailed discussion, we this thread: Duty to Retreat, "Stand Your Ground", and Castle Doctrine.
 
Here in California at that moment someone not a member of your household "unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence" you automatically get the presumption of having been in fear for your life.
Click to expand...

Same here in Utah. Plus the BG's family is barred from suing you. But I still would not have pulled the trigger. Someone that drunk can be subdued or held at bay for long enough for the police to arrive, and is probably not a threat to life. I'll go to very great lengths to avoid shooting someone, including accepting some risk to myself. But let him try to pick up a butcher knife or lay a hand on my honey....
 
Posted by Evil-Twin:
if someone posses the potential ability to harm you, and uses that potential ability to threaten you, rob you or intimidate you, its the potential harm, that makes him a threat to your safety and life
Click to expand...
Close, but no cigar.

It is not whether the person "posses the potential ability to harm you". It is whether you have a basis for reasonably believing that the person has the ability to kill you or to inflict serious bodily harm.

If so, we move to the question of whether he has the opportunity to do so, and whether you have a basis for a reasonable belief that he would do unless you stop him.

And after that, there is the question of last resort.

If the assailant puts you in a position of fear of life, armed or unarmed, that meets the necessary conditions to defend yourself.
Click to expand...
That really depends upon whether you have a basis for a reasonable belief that you are faced with an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.

If you do not believe him to be armed, it will be more difficult to substantiate the basis for that belief. That's where the disparity of force concept comes in.

Absent both, the use of deadly force would not be justified.
 
This is my first resort in dealing with drunk and belligerent pricks who make threats to me or take a swing at me or hit me. It is non-lethal and works very effectively.. Had that guy raised his fist to me and made those threats I would have given him a very nice blast of this and he would probably think twice before threatening other people in the future.

24a9241f69ea54ef38c4e945b2a956b5.jpg

You would have a much better time explaining your case of defense giving the person a dose of spray than pulling a gun and/or shooting him. Also, carrying a can of spray is good idea anyway, as I have been told if you ever do get involved in a shooting, that having a non lethal weapon on your body, shows you are a person with some restraint to a jury. This is, once again, is what one of my conceal carry course instructors told me (from my Utah CFP class), and I cannot base this 100% on fact either. But, I don't see where it hurts to have a good can of spray on you, anyhow. In any defensive shooting situation you will go through lot of turmoil, whether, as the moderators have written, means explaining yourself to the police or having to go to a court with a jury and fight to defend your use of deadly force as legitimate, self-defense.
 
Last edited:
That is a very good idea!

Do you know the laws in your state regarding what constitutes a lawful use of OC spray?

(It is, of course, still a use of force and thus an Assault. So you need to make sure your use of that force is predicated upon a justification that meets the terms of your state's law. Still can't OC someone for mouthing off or making threats, generally. So what does the law say?)
 
Sam1911 said:
That is a very good idea!

Do you know the laws in your state regarding what constitutes a lawful use of OC spray?

(It is, of course, still a use of force and thus an Assault. So you need to make sure your use of that force is predicated upon a justification that meets the terms of your state's law. Still can't OC someone for mouthing off or making threats, generally. So what does the law say?)
Click to expand...
Well, I have studied Washington's laws and OC spray is legal to carry and there are no restrictions, unlike places like Oregon and California who have all types of restrictions on pepper spray. Oregon gets tricky, because cities can issue their own pepper spray restrictions, like Portland. I bought my can of Mugger Fogger at my local Cabela's here in Seattle area. I've also thoroughly looked through all the laws and couldn't find any restriction in the laws of city of Seattle or state for pepper spray. In fact, I believe from reading the Washington state laws on the government website, that the Pre-Emption of Washington state extends to pepper spray, in addition to firearms, but not knives, where individual cities can regulate them.

I would, of course, have restraint even using pepper spray, but if I am in a dark alley and some guy is raising his fist and looks like he is going to hit me, I would rather take my chance using pepper spray than shooting him. Pepper spray is my second line of defense against unarmed people. My first line of defense, of course, is trying to be polite, rational and talk to the person and diffuse the situation and walk away. However, if I feel trapped and threatened, I would probably would resort to spray. If I see a guy with a gun or knife, of course, I would not reach for my pepper spray.

The OP is in Alaska, which I highly doubt has pepper spray restrictions, but I don't know for a fact, so it's always good to look up the laws for pepper spray. In some cities/states mugger fogger is illegal , but the smaller types of spray , like Jogger Fogger (e.g.) is legal and still very effective. I prefer to carry the most potent can of spray that I legally can. I don't mind the size, some do.
 
denton said:
Same here in Utah. Plus the BG's family is barred from suing you. But I still would not have pulled the trigger. Someone that drunk can be subdued or held at bay for long enough for the police to arrive, and is probably not a threat to life. I'll go to very great lengths to avoid shooting someone, including accepting some risk to myself. But let him try to pick up a butcher knife or lay a hand on my honey....
Click to expand...
As an old lady with some physical issues I unfortunately don't have as wide a range of choices as a man the same size and strength as the intruder.
 
Without reading anything but the OP...if I was dressed for leaving the house, as I assume you were since you were armed, I'd be creating distance and seeing if he was affected by pepper spray in his eyes. Generally Sabre brand. Always carried support side.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
CA: Tables turned on suspected assailants
Replies
1
Views
365
atk
A
D
  • Locked
CCW When would you draw???
2
Replies
38
Views
1K
Duke of Doubt
D
T
  • Locked
Friend pulled a gun yesterday
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Replies
192
Views
9K
Larry Ashcraft
Larry Ashcraft
H
  • Locked
I told Geraldo off today!
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
thexrayboy
T
J
  • Locked
Wheelchair bound Brit arrested for self defense
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
149
Views
7K
citizen
C
Back
Top