Was this a justified use of a concealed carry gun?

[wa3ra]

Pull a gun for a $.20 tablet? No justification.

[internet troll]

Pull a gun for a $.20 tablet? No justification.

But it was not for the .20 cent tablet, it was for the assault that occurred afterwards.

[Carson]

But it was not for the .20 cent tablet, it was for the assault that occurred afterwards.

While technically correct, many fights/assaults start over the most menial and stupid reason.

[Sgt.K]

Pull a gun for a $.20 tablet? No justification.

I haven't watched the video yet, but from what I've read:

She didn't pull the gun over a tablet. That would be wrong, no argument from me.

She pulled it when 2 women in their 30's and 40's began assaulting her 20-year-old daughter and then shoved her.

[internet troll]

While technically correct, many fights/assaults start over the most menial and stupid reason.

Right, and do you give up your right to self defense because an attack was started over something trivial?


A lot of people thought George Zimmerman was stupid and foolish for following Trayvon Martin. That doesn't mean he gave up his right to self defense though when Matin confronted and attacked him.

Not trying to be difficult just trying to think this through.

[GunLawyer001]

The argument I'd make to the jury would be that the gun-holder was NOT waving a gun around so that her daughter could buy the last notebook, she was using the gun to defuse the situation as two thugs ganged up on her daughter, grabbed her hair and seized control of her face and head.

Two women who are willing to attack a woman over a notebook CAN NOT be trusted to limit themselves to not injure the daughter. Two women can easily overpower one woman, and smash her face into the corner of a shelf, or knee her in the face while one of them holds her still. They can cause permanent injury or death, and the only thing the mother knew about their judgment was that they were batshit crazy. You can't trust crazy people to restrain themselves to reasonable actions, not after you see them going to 11 on the official Wackjob Scale.

The proof that the gun-holder was NOT escalating the situation is that (a) she didn't shoot, and (b) she made her lawful demands clear and explicit ('stop attacking my daughter'), and (c) once her daughter was free she didn't press the attack. She used the THREAT of force to end the original USE of force. That's what we're supposed to do.

In a sane world, we'd all understand that physical injury trumps words and gestures. The two attackers broke the law when they attacked the daughter over a notebook; the mother responded as best she could. Seriously, what was her alternative for stopping the immediate threat? Dial 911 and wait 20 minutes? Beg for help from random Walmartians? Try to out-wrestle two younger, stronger women with a propensity for irrational violence?

She had a gun, her daughter was being battered, and she stopped the attack without bloodshed.

Can you shoot two women over hair-pulling? Probably not. But she didn't USE deadly force, she THREATENED to use deadly force. Those are different things, just like a cop drawing his gun before approaching a suspect is under different rules than a cop who aims and fires his gun at that same suspect. Threats are FREQUENTLY used to deter bad guys, and that's what this woman did.

That being said, too many people (including DA's and judges and jurors) park their brains on a shelf when they second-guess gun owners. They are perfectly capable of giving the 2 attackers a pass for actually grabbing the daughter and assaulting her, while crucifying the mother for not touching a hair on their heads.

[scruff]

I haven't watched the video yet, but from what I've read:

She didn't pull the gun over a tablet. That would be wrong, no argument from me.

She pulled it when 2 women in their 30's and 40's began assaulting her 20-year-old daughter and then shoved her.

Then you should watch the video. All I see is a little hair-pulling and grabbing at the notebook. No ground-and-pound, no kicking, no punching or slapping. It's a minor tussle, not a knock down-drag out fight. Try convincing a jury that that's a lethal-force situation.

[Sgt.K]

Then you should watch the video.

After I get home...

All I see is a little hair-pulling and grabbing at the notebook. No ground-and-pound, no kicking, no punching or slapping. It's a minor tussle, not a knock down-drag out fight. Try convincing a jury that that's a lethal-force situation.

Refer to post #26...

[scruff]

Refer to post #26...

Exactly. It's more than making a logical argument, it's convincing a jury. What are the odds that a jury would see this as an excessive use of force? In some jurisdictions, pretty darn high. I would NOT take that chance over a little yelling and hair-pulling.

[free]

Nope. No reasonable fear of serious bodily injury or death, so no justification to pull the gun. What a stupid move.

Ditto.

But I will add: Over a FUCKING notebook!! Dumbasses!!!