Unarmed attackers

[muxtech]

I don't understand how if you were warned in advance about these individuals, then were harassed by them in a restaurant/bar, why you would leave relative safety to go on foot alone & unarmed only to be "surprised" when they pursued and attacked you from behind.

I believe your story, I just don't understand it from a self defense point of view. How much warning to a threat does it take to try to mitigate said threat?

CCW is only a part of my preparedness for such an attack. I train weekly and study in preparation for this type of encounter.

Two books that I highly recommend are Sgt. Rory Miller's, Meditations on Violence, and Facing Violence. We live in a different "world" than your attackers do. It's helpful to fully understand who and what they are, and how they think and act, and how we might best avoid the unfortunate outcome of your encounter.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/159439 ... _i=desktop" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well I walked right past the cops and then 1 block away I was attacked. Just seeing the cops there I felt safe and thought nothing will happen and I kept walking since my home is a few blocks away.

Plus I had never been in a knock down dragout fight like this before so me being careless, worry free made me end up being the victim. I had no idea i would get attacked from behind.

I am sorry to hear what happened and hope that you recover fully. If it was me, I would not rest until they were arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Then again, if it WAS me I might go another route altogether.

[BobK]

Then again, if it WAS me I might go another route altogether.

That is where friendships are helpful. One can sit 45 minutes away in a public restaurant that you know has video, and let your friend(s) take care of other solutions.

[muxtech]

Then again, if it WAS me I might go another route altogether.

That is where friendships are helpful. One can sit 45 minutes away in a public restaurant that you know has video, and let your friend(s) take care of other solutions.

Amen to that. But this incident really illustrates that concentrated preparedness is the best overall strategy. The bad guy gets to pick the time, place, and manner of attack. I get to choose the playing cards in my hand in advance, so to speak. It is in the instant that I am under attack that I have the upper hand to employ the judicious use of force legally. There are some things that I would risk going to jail for. But better to exercise my right to self defense in the moment and prevail, than to have a score to settle after the fact.

[CousinCarl]

Then again, if it WAS me I might go another route altogether.

That is where friendships are helpful. One can sit 45 minutes away in a public restaurant that you know has video, and let your friend(s) take care of other solutions.

Ah yes. It is good to have friends in low places.

[CroManGun]

Then again, if it WAS me I might go another route altogether.

That is where friendships are helpful. One can sit 45 minutes away in a public restaurant that you know has video, and let your friend(s) take care of other solutions.

Ah yes. It is good to have friends in low places.

The lower the better. Preferably under the radar and off the grid.

[Tweed Ring]

As I recall, the first high profile CCW shooting involved a very large Samoan gentleman named Tavai.

Tavai was in a vehicle which was involved in a hit-skip accident.

Yep, that was the first self defense case in Texas after the concealed handgun law was passed in 1995.

The CHL law went into effect on Jan 1. 1996. Mr. Gordon Reid Hale III was a newly licensed CHL when he was forced to defend himself on Feb. 21, 1996. The Dallas Grand Jury no-billed him.

Of course, the actual case depended upon a self defense justification and that law did not change when the CHL law first went into effect. If the shooting had instead happened two years earlier, Mr. Hale still would have been no-billed regarding Tavai's shooting as the facts were about the use of deadly force, not about having a handgun license. What made it a landmark case was he didn't get charged with carrying an illegal weapon. If the shooting prior to the CHL law, Hale would have been prosecuted for carrying a handgun illegally.

http://www.csmonitor.com/1996/0325/25032.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Was this Harris County? I remember the case. The prosecutor wanted the shooter indicted - the Grand Jury no billed. Something about truck mirrors.

[muxtech]

If the shooting was prior to the CHL law, Hale would have been prosecuted for carrying a handgun illegally.

Was Hale in a vehicle? I think that handguns were permitted in vehicles in Texas prior to the CHL law. That's why Suzanna Hupp left her gun in her car outside Luby's. It was legal there. It was illegal in the restaurant. I used to vehicle carry in Texas in the early 90's.

[BobK]

If the shooting was prior to the CHL law, Hale would have been prosecuted for carrying a handgun illegally.

Was Hale in a vehicle? I think that handguns were permitted in vehicles in Texas prior to the CHL law. That's why Suzanna Hupp left her gun in her car outside Luby's. It was legal there. It was illegal in the restaurant. I used to vehicle carry in Texas in the early 90's.

Nope, the Motorist Protection Act was passed in 2007. That is when the law explicitly said everyone could carry in their car so long as certain conditions were met.

Prior to 2007, Texas only had an defense to prosecution for a non-licensee to carry a handgun in a car while "traveling". The definition of traveling was always ambiguous and unclear, and varied from county to county/prosecutor to prosecutor/judge to judge. Some counties you had to show you were staying overnight away from home. Other counties you just had to travel to a different county. It was never legal to simply have a handgun in your car for everyday driving (back and forth to work, running to the grocery, etc.)

If you were vehicle carrying in the early 90's, you were risking arrest and conviction for unlawful carry weapons (UCW). Of course, you were white without a record so the odds of arrest were pretty slim unless you were doing drugs or failed an roadside "attitude test" with the police.

[BobK]

Was this Harris County?

Happened in Dallas.

[muxtech]

I did a lot of overnight car travel away from home as a field technician back then. Being 25 years ago, the particulars are a little faded. Fortunately, I never had any trouble.

[Ray81]

How do people in anti gun states like NYC, NJ, DC, Maryland etc defend themselves if attacked by multiple attackers or some huge guy? I guess stay at home like I do.
I'm sure such things happen there everyday. There is no way I'm moving to an anti gun state from now on.
Anti gun laws provide punks and thugs a huge advantage as they know citizens are disarmed and they can go around smacking people in groups.

[Ray81]

Unfortunately you are now in a very vicarious,and dangerous situation.Your history with the people that injured you and the fact that you identified them(on social media),woulld surely muddy any future claim of self defense.

During my CCW class my instructor gave an example similar to mine that you cannot bring up the past, no matter who was at fault in the past.
The law only looks at the evidence/circumstances to what happened during the time of the incident. See 2nd paragraph of Condition 1 where a CCW holder must prove in court that he/she was not at fault.

Condition 1: Defendant Is Not At Fault
First, the defendant must prove that he was not at fault for
creating the situation. The defendant cannot be the first aggressor
or initiator.
However, in proving the victim’s fault, a defendant cannot point
to other unrelated situations in which the victim was the aggressor.
Remember, the focus is on the specific facts of the situation
at hand.

http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/geta ... ws-Manual-(PDF" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;).aspx

[Klingon00]

Unfortunately you are now in a very vicarious,and dangerous situation.Your history with the people that injured you and the fact that you identified them(on social media),woulld surely muddy any future claim of self defense.

During my CCW class my instructor gave an example similar to mine that you cannot bring up the past, no matter who was at fault in the past.
The law only looks at the evidence/circumstances to what happened during the time of the incident. See 2nd paragraph of Condition 1 where a CCW holder must prove in court that he/she was not at fault.

Condition 1: Defendant Is Not At Fault
First, the defendant must prove that he was not at fault for
creating the situation. The defendant cannot be the first aggressor
or initiator.
However, in proving the victim’s fault, a defendant cannot point
to other unrelated situations in which the victim was the aggressor.
Remember, the focus is on the specific facts of the situation
at hand.

http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/geta ... ws-Manual-(PDF" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;).aspx

Remember that Juries are made up of fallible people who may or may not consider past relationships between parties when making decisions if a clever prosecutor manages to get such information heard in the courtroom, even if they are later instructed to ignore it...

[Thawmytongue]

How do people in anti gun states like NYC, NJ, DC, Maryland etc defend themselves if attacked by multiple attackers or some huge guy? I guess stay at home like I do.
I'm sure such things happen there everyday. There is no way I'm moving to an anti gun state from now on.
Anti gun laws provide punks and thugs a huge advantage as they know citizens are disarmed and they can go around smacking people in groups.

I moved from MD to OH recently and happily carry a firearm everyday and feel much safer. In MD, a knife, stout walking stick or rape whistle were about all the legal options I had.

[fyrfytr310]

How do people in anti gun states like NYC, NJ, DC, Maryland etc defend themselves if attacked by multiple attackers or some huge guy? I guess stay at home like I do.
I'm sure such things happen there everyday. There is no way I'm moving to an anti gun state from now on.
Anti gun laws provide punks and thugs a huge advantage as they know citizens are disarmed and they can go around smacking people in groups.

I moved from MD to OH recently and happily carry a firearm everyday and feel much safer. In MD, a knife, stout walking stick or rape whistle were about all the legal options I had.

And unless very skilled their application (minus the whistle) all are useless against multiple attackers. All are again useless when considering any number of attackers armed with firearms.