First SD Use In Public

[LowerLeft]

First, glad to hear you're okay! Second, you did great, with the exception of touching the other weapon. Also, Sorry to hear the LE treated you that way, but with all that's been going on all over the place I'm sure that was in his mind somewhere.
You did a great job just paying attention to what was going on all together though. Think about how many people wouldn't have even been paying attention to everything you saw before the incident even started. Great job on your part - if more people just paid attention, like you did, I believe more than half of the situations that happen wouldn't.
Glad you're okay, again, you did great over all!

 

[LowerLeft]

Okay, reading more and Rhodco, I totally get where you're coming from - hell, I probably would have shot when my sites were on target too. But he did the right thing, He didn't take a life he didn't have to. He didn't have to deal with the legal ramifications of it. He didn't have to sink money into the court system, or the lawyers or whatever else.
I also know each area is different, but here in my area, you HAVE to give the assailant the opportunity to leave. Yes, I know this is a very grey area - but MikeNice, I believe still did the right thing. He gave the guy the chance to change direction and go, if the assailant had attempted to continue forward, then blow his freaking brains out all over the place.
Just because we carry guns doesn't mean we can use them whenever we want. That may seem like I'm drinking the Kool-Aid but I'm not. You don't know how that may have effected him mentally had he pulled the trigger and blasted the guy all over the parking lot. I know if I would have been attacked and the assailant would have tried to come towards me I would have plastered his tail to the pavement, but I can't say I would have been OK after the fact. That's a seriously mental strain dealing with having shot someone any they possibly die. Would it have been worth it then? The guy turned and went away - if that had been caught on video and he had pulled the trigger then it would have been his butt in the sling sitting and rotting behind bars.

MikeNice - you did right bro, you're alive to tell the story, Be Greatful you had the foresite to do what you did. You can practice all you want, but until you are truly faced with it, you never know really how you're going to react and I think you did great! From what you have said, maybe your footwork needs some practice, but thankfully the car was there to help balance against - what would have happened had it not been a car and it was like a motorcycle and you tipped the damn thing over. You might have been in some serious trouble then. Everything worked out - be thankful it worked in your favor and situation. That's a heart stopping moment and as someone else said on the thread - YOU PASSED!

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by rhodco: If your attacker only paused before moving towards a better tactical position, he has not withdrawn from combat.

A civilian is not in "combat" if he is not defending himself against imminent danger of death or serious bodiiy harm--that's danger that exists at the moment.

He is only looking for another angle of attack. What if he had lowered his weapon and backed away... then circled around to try and come up on you again?

Well, if he does actually come up on you again, you may again be justified in the use of deadly force, then. But you won't know if that's what he's doing until he does it, right?

Then, he never really broke off the attack did he?

Though he may have decided to resume later, yes he did.

Same as if a gunman is running away. Can you shoot him in the back? It depends. If he is simply running for cover in order to resume combat from a better position, yes... shoot him in the back.

How could you tell? How could you ever persuade reasonable people that you had a reasonable basis for believing that he still intended to shoot you? What evidence would you present?

Remember, one cannot employ deadly force because someone tried to harm you in the past, no matter how recent, and one cannot employ deadly force because someone may try to harm you in the future.

Of course, what a gunman may do is irrelevant, because MikeNice was not up against a gunman, and a man with a contact weapon who is moving away cannot constitute an imminent threat.

 

[dChris]

Wait, what? Pushing him to the ground with his foot and screaming at him after he had already tried to explain to the officer what happened, all the while (from what he said), he was being compliant while at gunpoint?
No, I don't think so. You don't push someone to the ground because you don't understand the situation for your safety if they are on their knees, hands behind their head, another officer is pointing a gun at them, and they've been there for some time. Especially since they don't even KNOW if there actually is a weapon.
That's a crock; it's a prime example of LEO with an ego and should not be tolerated.

I agree. I have been through the use of force training (LE academy graduate) and that officer was using excessive force. If a subject is compliant, there is no excuse for that level of force. For your own safety, always be compliant. Officers are authorized to escalate one up for what ever level of force you are using. If you have empty hands, they can use non lethal weapons. If they think you are armed, they can use lethal force. It is all down to what they can articulate in their report.

 

[dChris]

You know, that comment seems to me to indicate that there is a belief among some either that (1) the arriving officers have a way of somehow divining who is a "good guy" by simple observation, or (2) that there is a reasonable alternative to their immediately and effectively securing the scene after a shooting takes place, or (3) that the officers can afford the risk of assuming that the shooter does not constitute an immediate threat to public safety before getting on with their investigation.

How realistic are any of those ideas?

Let's think together about what mljdeckard said that seems to upset people:

​

Now that certainly does sound rather harsh, but realistically, what else would one expect under many circumstances? Someone has shot someone, and witnesses whose attention was drawn to the incident only by the sound of the shot point that out. Wouldn't the facts then known indicate a high risk to the officers and to public safety? Can the officers reasonably ignore that risk?

I live in a large metropolitan area, and the adjacent city has the highest violent crime rate in the country. We are in a must issue state. Self defense shootings are in the news with greater frequency than ever before--but almost all of them seem to have occurred in homes or in businesses.

The number of outdoor self defense shootings that have been in the news in the last two years can be counted on the fingers of one hand with enough digits left over for texting, but the number of unjustified homicides approaches 500 per year.

From that, it would seem to me that the likelihood that a person who has shot someone is a violent criminal actor is hundreds of times higher than the likelihood that he happens to be a "good guy".

So, isn't it just prudent for the officers to immediately make sure that a shooter does not present an serious threat before doing anything else?

Is there a safe way to do that that does not involve putting the cuffs on him? Is there a safe way to put the cuffs on a violent criminal that does not involve putting him on the ground?

Has any of that changed much in recent years?

We had a shooting incident yesterday in which someone fired a gun in a cell phone store. When the manager presented his weapon, the perp fled. As he ran down the street, he was encountered by a police officer who had no idea of what had transpired--he just saw a man holding a gun near a car.

The only reason that the officer did not shoot is because he could not get a clear shot, but he did manage to disarm the perp and put him on the ground.

I'm not tying to argue here. I don't like the idea of being put on the ground, either. I'm just trying to think it through, and it seems to me that mljdeckard is simply being realistic.

I'm interested in the views of our LEO members, but anyone's comment is welcome.

By the way, I'm not entirely sure that MikeNice's encounter involved the same clear and present danger as a shooting or a man with gun in hand, particularly because he had holstered the gun before the police arrived, but I suggest that we do not know enough about what happened behind the scenes and with the 911 operator to comment.

Based on my, "Use of Force" training in the Police Academy, you only take someone to the ground if they are resisting. It is not called for if they are cooperating. Simple as that.

 

[SSN Vet]

Waxing philosophic on the story....

Because we don't bother much prosecuting criminals.... and when we do, they get light sentences in our revolving door criminal *cough* justice system, we have hardened, multiple offenders running rampant.

Just pull the string on what percentage of murders go unsolved and you'll start to realize what kind of people are potentially pumping gas on the other side of the pump from you.

Add to that the fact that ACLU types chose to defend every possible type of perversion and sadism as "protected free expression"...

Stir it all up for about 40 years and you have one sick society.

The para-militarization of the police and the type of actions demonstrated by officer #2 (the supervisor, showing officer #1 the "correct" procedure) are just one of the results of the total failure of our justice system. These guys want to go home to their families. I don't blame them. I hope they can. But apparently, they are more concerned about that than they are breaking the back of a victim of a violent crime.

So if the police act in their own self interests at your expense, are they still to be considered your "friend"?

Our society is reaping what it has sewn. And moral corruption is so rampant that I see no possible way for it to be redeemed in tact.

Choose where you hang your hat very carefully. Watch your back constantly. Take care of those who you know and love and make good friends of those who are like minded.

You just may need them.

 

[JohnnyOrygun]

What about those of us with physical challenges? Who can't get on our knees?

Mikenice, I think you did a great job. Glad that things worked out, I can only imagine what your nerves must have been like after it was all over, the knife wielding and all. I know I would have been a quaking bowl of jello and lucky to remember my own name.

But you did good, your situational awareness was superb. You noticed the guy and made note of his actions and I think like most of us, you came up with reasons for his behavior. That is just normal, we try to "normalize" other people's behavior... "They are having a bad day", "Must have locked his key's in his car", and etc. But when things went south, your alarms went off and you reacted very well. People might try to nit pick you on things, but I think you did just fine and actually thought very well, covering the knife so it didn't disappear and etc.

An earlier user asked the question what do you do if you can't physically comply with the officers orders. The question was asked, what if you can't raise your hand to your head because of a bad/injured shoulder? I have a bad shoulder, I can't lift my left hand above my head, that shoulder is getting replaced this summer. Additionally, I have two artificial hips.... I can't get down on my knees without a chair or a stool.... not happening. Plus, I am a big guy, over 350lbs... granted I am not likely to be accosted by a criminal, unless they notice my handicap placard in my truck or that I walk funny. I am not an old man, 41 isn't old. Just have had some physical problems.

To some of the police officers on here, what does someone do if they can't physically comply with an officers orders? Am I gonna get tazed because I can't raise my hand over my head or because I can't get down on my knees without a chair or stool?

I mean no disrespect to any law enforcement officers, my father was a policeman for a while. But some of the tactics one sees on television in the cop reality shows, where they follow cops with a camera are over the top. I will say, that being an avid fan of the National Geographic Channels series on Alaska State Troopers, that those officers seem to go out of their way to be reasonable with people. I don't know if they are doing that because of the cameras or in spite of the cameras.

I truly appreciate all of the fine officers who put their lives on the line everyday to protect and serve the public. It is a job I wouldn't want. Thank You!

John

 

[T Slothrop]

To some of the police officers on here, what does someone do if they can't physically comply with an officers orders?

This has been for years a huge concern of mine as well. I have a (thankfully) extremely mild manifestation of right-side hemiplegic cerebral palsy. Unless you carefully watch me walk or observe me going about tasks that require a lot of manual dexterity, you would never know there is anything wrong with me. A cop pulling up on the scene of the aftermath of a self defense situation certainly would not.

However I cannot raise my right hand and arm above my head. I cannot get down on my knees without help or without a cane. Most critically, I cannot place my right hand behind my back. If an officer were to force my arm into that position to cuff me, it would almost certainly break or at best dislocate my shoulder.

Because of this, I rarely carry. My permit is used mainly for buying handguns without the need of my sheriff's approval and for transporting a loaded handgun in my briefcase while driving to and from my business. I try to live my life in such a way as to never ever have to interact with law enforcement.

I shouldn't have to worry about that.

 

[Cosmoline]

You should have:

--RAISED HANDS HIGH as soon as the police were in sight.
--IDENTIFIED THE LOCATION OF THE FIREARM also while your hands were high
--UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should you curse at the officers.
--Keep your communications limited to the essentials and FREE FROM AMBIGUITIES
--Speak plainly and simply.

You WILL BE cuffed and you WILL be searched. This is not the same as being arrested. Don't get confrontational over it, they have to do it.

He was yelling, “where’s the gun” over and over.

You should, with hands very very high, have already told the first officer that.

You have to assume that after a weapon has been drawn, let alone shots fired, any responding officer will kill anyone who doesn't have hands high. That's the only safe assumption to make. They get really mad when you are moving around arguing with them. And folks have gotten killed that way.

 

[MikeNice]

Cosmoline, I think you need to read the OP a second time.

The first cop was there pretty quick. Fortunately, I had holstered the gun. However, I waved him down because he was just circling the parking lot. He pulled up and I guess he recognized me from the description the caller made. He hopped out of the car and kept the door between us. He had his gun out and ordered me to put my hands behind my head. Then he ordered me to get on my knees. I told him my name and said that I was a CCH permit holder. He kept me like that until a second unit arrived.

Then they approached and the second officer shoved me to the ground with his foot. He was yelling, “where’s the gun” over and over. I was shocked to say the least. I told him it was in my pocket. I also told him that I had my CCH permit in my wallet. He told me to shut up. He searched me and pulled my gun out. Then he handcuffed me and stood me up.

Hands were behind my head as instructed. I informed the first officer of the gun and CCH permit while remaining compliant. I also informed the second officer of my permit and the location of the gun. He had not taken the time to ask myself or the other officer. He didn't ask about it untill he started to shove me torwards the ground. Then, when I told him, he told me to shut up. I was attempting to impart the information he asked for and he told me to shut up.

I waved the cop over because I had just reported an attempted robbery. The reason I cursed was because the cop had allready resulted to physical force. Plus I was unaware someone had reported a man with a gun. I thought he was talking about the assailant. I didn't learn about the other call untill I was cuffed and they were talking to each other.

As far as the assumption that cops will kill anybody without their hands in the air, that is bull. If a cop shoots purely because a person's hands aren't up when they arrive, they have committed murder. I work with cops and I know that "his hands were down, he could have done anything," is not a viable reason for shooting. There must be a clear and present danger that the officer can clearly articulate. It must also be a danger that another step on the use of force continuim couldn't handle.

As far as "you will be cuffed" goes, cops have handled the same situation without cuffs for decades. This result to cuffs imeadiately thing is relatively new. Cuffs are usually for unruly suspects or for the moment of arrest. Compliant suspects do not have to be handcuffed and many times are not handcuffed.

I wasn't upset about the cuffs though. I was upset at being shoved to the ground while compliant. I was more upset that I had to endure a lecture about gun safety from an idiot. He was talking about the ability of my five shot revolver to kill a dozen people. He was also telling me things like, I should "engage the safety." There isn't one on my double action revolver. He also told me that I should "think twice" before pulling a gun in public. I guess I should ask for a time out to contemplate the possibilities and alternatives. Maybe I'll ask politely instead of pulling my gun next time.

His lecture was beyond the call of duty and borderline idiotic.

They get really mad when you are moving around arguing with them.

I guess it was a good thing that I was on my knees with my hands behind my head. Even better that I was compliant and told them I was a CCH permitee, that I had a gun, and where it was located.

 

[SSN Vet]

You have to assume that after a weapon has been drawn, let alone shots fired, any responding officer will kill anyone who doesn't have hands high.

Now there's due process for you....

Just shoot anybody who excercises their constitutional rights but doesn't grovel in the dirt with proper servitude.

Very nice

 

[BLB68]

Glad you got through the incident unscathed. Sounds like you handled it well enough. IMO, you should report the second cop to the department's internal affairs. An excessive force case would probably not go far without injuries, but the guy sounds like he could use an attitude adjustment.

 

[Cosmoline]

I didn't say LEO's should shoot anyone without their hands up, I said you MUST ASSUME THEY WILL. Because that's the only safe assumption. Get them high! For the responding officer, there are no black or white hats. Telling someone you have a permit means nothing. Assume that they will assume you are a potential deadly threat and proceed accordingly. Don't do anything sudden and expect to be cuffed and searched. That's not the time for banter. They will need to secure you and the scene before any statements are taken.

Just shoot anybody who excercises their constitutional rights but doesn't grovel in the dirt with proper servitude.

It has nothing to do with the exercise of constitutional rights. What we're talking about here is threatening to kill someone, albeit in self defense. That's not a constitutional right. You can and should expect responding LEO's to detain and search your person while holding you at gunpoint. Do NOT argue with them then. Just be compliant. For the love of Pete don't start ranting about the Constitution! Understand that there are set procedures they have to go through in order to secure the situation. That may not mean you're pushed to the ground with cuffs, or it may mean you will be. The only safe assumption is that you will be, so be prepared for rough handling. They can be pretty nervous, and they can be crafty. They may try to rough you up a bit to see if they can get a reaction from you. Expect that, and don't give it to them.

If an officer wants to rant about things, that's something he gets to do. Don't bandy words with him, don't get drawn into making admissions. He could be trying to trick you into doing precisely that.

Of course, it may be that you have a good cop who doesn't even cuff you and who can tell right away what happened. That has been my experience, though I've also faced the barrel of an officer's AR before the facts were established. But we should train with the expectation we'll be treated as you were in this case.

I work with cops and I know that "his hands were down, he could have done anything," is not a viable reason for shooting.

Only in this case they already knew there had been a drawn weapon, and got the report from a third party. You were in fact armed. The ONLY thing your hands should do is reach for the sky until further instructions. Apparently that's what you did, so that's great. If they had shot you, they would have found a body with a firearm on it and some conflicting statements of passers-by. You would have been chalked up as another crazy CCW holder who tried to take on the cops.

 

[Sheepdog1968]

Frontsight does a pretty good job in their lectures of explaining what to expect after you draw a gun (worth attending). What you received seemed to fit my expectations. Until they secure you, and make sure it is safe, they really don't want to hear what your side of the story. I'm glad it worked out well for you. The fact that they released you at the scene was good. There is a good chance, depending on your social/policital local, that you could be brough in to jail. In the San Francisco Bay Area, I would fully expect to be brough in to jail and arrested and then the DAs would decide if charges are warrented. I'm not surprised that you aren't sleeping as well. You could likely have some PTSD going on as well.

 

[Sheepdog1968]

Glad you got through the incident unscathed. Sounds like you handled it well enough. IMO, you should report the second cop to the department's internal affairs. An excessive force case would probably not go far without injuries, but the guy sounds like he could use an attitude adjustment.

It doesn't sound like excessive force to me. I was also told to expect that when they have you on the ground expect to get an atomic knee as they put cuffs on you. After that when they frisk you, expect to be touched in places you'd rather not be touched on a first date. When the roll up, they don't know exactly what is going on. All they know if people saw you with a gun.

 

[Strykervet]

1st, you are lucky --had he wanted to do harm, a knife is much more deadly close quarters in the right hands. Sounds like the cart saved you as much as the piece did.

Yeah, you can count on the cops to over react much of the time. Mostly because they get away with it, and so that is the type of individuals they are attracting and hiring. If I wanted to beat people and get away with it, I'd have been a cop, because it is just too easy. Puts a bad face on the ones that do it because they want to serve the public. Here where I live, they are under federal investigation for civil rights violations of the US Constitution. They shot a guy with a knife for not dropping it, but he wasn't trying to use it either. A pocket knife in the open --Oh God!-- call in tandem A-10's! That isn't all they are under investigation for, but that one takes the cake. All on camera too.

I think you did the right thing. The second you pulled the piece, someone from a distance probably saw you aim and called the cops. They probably didn't see the knife wielder the way you describe it, so the first cop acted accordingly. He did the right thing.

NOW. The second cop and the third... The one that put the boot in your back commited assault, as you were cooperating and were at gun-point. He had no excuse, none at all. You did exactly as they asked and they still chose to act violently. The minimum crime he commited was battery.

YOU can go to the DA and press charges. I would most definitely. As an injured vet with a bad back, it would have landed me in the hospital. And I'd play every card I have, because that is exactly how they do it.

From Wikipedia:

Specific rules regarding battery vary among different jurisdictions, but some elements remain constant across jurisdictions. Battery generally requires that:

1.an offensive touching or contact is made upon the victim, instigated by the actor; and
2.the actor intends or knows that his action will cause the offensive touching.

Sounds like bad cop tried to scare you away from pressing charges against him by rattling off a laundry list of crap that you COULD be charged with but WON'T because a DA has to pick and choose his battles. The worst you did was brandishing (which technically you did, but it would be thrown out if the DA chose to pursue it due to the circumstances). A misdemeanor here, big deal when you got a knife that close to you.

Did you resist arrest? Doesn't sound like it. Hold bad cops accountable. Commend the good ones. Think about it. If your dog peed on the carpet, would that be acceptable? Would you give him a treat? Letting this action go is tantamount to rewarding his action.

Oh yeah, and never talk to the cops without an attorney. It just isn't wise.

 

[MAC USMC]

This entire episode turned out very well. The primary learning point for you and every one who encounters the police is straight-forward and simple. SEPARATE YOURSELF from your FIREARM when the POLICE ARRIVE. Do not wait, put it on the ground quickly BEFORE they even exit their cars. STEP BACK AWAY FROM THE GUN! Put your hands UP shoulder high and palms outward to show you have no other weapon.

You have now LOWERED THE THREAT LEVEL to the officers and shown cooperation and compliance. They do not have to locate the gun, disarm you, etc. Winesses often report what they think they saw and embellish it to get the police to respond. The officers are operating on the info provided and want to neutralize the gun-bearer - - YOU!

 

[Uteridge]

The situation did turn out well...all things considered. The actions of Cop #2 were over the line but not so much that you would be able to win a lawsuit against him.

The important learning point is what Strykervet alluded to a little bit when he said that you brandished a weapon but it would not be pursued by a DA because of circumstances. The point being that in any self defense situation you will start out your interaction with the police by having broken a law...but justifiably so. Because of that fact you will most likely be treated as a criminal until the police realize that it was clearly justified. If you are in a self defense situation in public, you will have at the very least brandished a weapon or committed assault with a deadly weapon and possibly the situation may have escalated to the point where you committed a homicide. The police showing up may not know who the good guy is right away; as seems to be the case in your situation. This is especially true if you don't get the first 911 call in. The bottom line is that you have to be prepared to be treated in the same way a criminal is treated by the responding officers because you have committed what would be considered a criminal act under a different set of circumstances. Until the police establish what the circumstances of the situation are, you are just a guy who was seen pulling a gun on another man in public (assault with a deadly weapon). I for one hope that all police officers show up to a MWAG call vigilant for their own safety; I expect to be drawn down on and proned out if it increases the responding officer's chances of making it home to his family in a similar situation where the MWAG is not a good guy.

 

[gamestalker]

MikeNice, the first thing I want to say is I'm glad to hear you are OK. I totally understand your encounter and can relate to the whole time freezing slow motion perception thing. By the way, my name is Mike and I live in Arizona.
Your awareness of an impending situation was much better than most, in my opinion. Most of the time, the perp is trying to conceal their intentions until the very last second, for obvious reasons. Unfortunately , most people who are faced with this situation are reasoning the perpetrators' actions right up until the last second. I think you did well, you didn't die that day.

 

[Maia007]

You did fine

 

[SSN Vet]

It has nothing to do with the exercise of constitutional rights. What we're talking about here is threatening to kill someone, albeit in self defense. That's not a constitutional right.

What I find sad about this entire incident is that if MikeNice had chosen to be MikeMean, he would have popped the guy twice in the chest and when the police showed up and saw him sitting on the ground and the BG dead with a knife in his hand, Mike would have been much better off.... a clear case of self defense (assuming he's not in one of the inane liberal states that have a duty to retreat.... but even then, he did retreat, untill he backed into a car.)

But because MikeNice is nice, he spared the scumbags life.... and the response of the police is to slam him to the ground and treat HIM like the criminal.

Then, just to show how completely lost an morally adrift this country is, when the police due catch the guy weeks later, they won't bother charging him with the "amred robbery" that he attempted.

 

[xXxplosive]

So what's the conclusion then.......should Mike have shot the knife wielding BG to defend himself or did he do the right thing in letting him escape to wreak his violence on other innocent people....?

I believe it's not our job to practice vigilantism but to protect ourselves and our loved ones only......was the threat averted after the gun was drawn ?

Some professionals say if you need to draw your gun, then you need to shoot........

 

[Uteridge]

This was the best possible outcome for Mike. I don't carry a gun in my own personal off-duty time to protect anyone else; it is for me and mine. I'm not out to take a bad guy off the street, if he wreaks violence on other innocent people then I guess they should have prepared themselves for that eventuality just like Mike did but that is not my concern. If Mike had fired and faced an investigator with a chip on his shoulder against armed citizens and an overzealous prosecutor would any of those other potential victims have paid his legal bills? Gotten him treatment for PTSD? Didn't think so...my gun is to protect me and mine. If I don't have to shoot someone then I won't. I have seen enough things at war that I don't want to remember to add to them unless I absolutely have no other choice.

 

[MikeNice]

I believe shooting the guy would have been excessive. When the gun was on him, and he knew that things would get messy, he backed away with his hands up. By the way the law is written in North Carolina he was disengaging from the confrontation. Any use of force could have been construed as excessive force.

I doubt the DA would push things. However, with the election cycle due to start up at any time, it wouldn't be wise to push things. Politics in this part of the state can be dirty and corrupt. Look up what happened with Mike Nifong in Durham. Unfortunately, this is the most liberal part of the state. So, if it looks like a way to score points with certain voting blocks, expect to be the whipping boy.

When Eve Carson was murdered it disappeared from the news quickly. It didn't matter that the murderers were scum. It didn't matter that they were career criminals and one was linked to the death of another student at another college. Justice was served, but it was quiet.

A group of Duke Lacrosse players were accused of raping a stripper. (She had a history of mental illness and criminal activity.) It was headline news for months. The DA tried to twist evidence and rape the justice system for a conviction. His actions were so bad that he was disbarred. When they thought they could play the class and race card they pulled out every trick in the book. Fortunately the young adult's parent's had enough money too fight back. I'm not a millionare banker. I couldn't afford to put up the fight they did.

In the end considerring the laws, the political climate of the area, and my financial situation, it was better not too shoot.

 

[ForumSurfer]

Post #99 sums up why I wouldn't have shot.

The aggressor was disengaging. The political things are true, too...but I doubt any of that would have been going on in my head while my finger was on the trigger.

Mike, I'm glad things turned out well for you.

Hopefully these new bills will pass the NC senate. If this would have happened on your way into your local favorite restaurant that serves alcohol, the outcome could have been horribly different as you would have been forced to be disarmed under current NC law.