Man stands up to thug, gets shot at 3 times

[kidswarrior]

Was this a self-defense situation, or did it get turned into one by the victim?

Keep wondering what I would have done. Still not sure.

 

[Aiki Lee]

If he were properly trained the result may have been different. It sounds like the guy had some confidence without any ability. I'm sure if he had trained for ten years before this he could have trashed that thug before he could pull out his weapon.


Then again, this serves as a lesson for all of us I think, any idiot with a gun can kill you if your not careful. For me gun defence is mostly a question of how close my attacke is to me, and what is available to aid me as cover and how confident I feel at the time.

 

[elder999]

Was this a self-defense situation, or did it get turned into one by the victim?

Yes it was a self defense situation. The victim didn't turn it into anything-he was just on the street, minding his own business.

Keep wondering what I would have done. Still not sure.

I'd have shot him.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Well he's got the most important thing down( Will to act)

Now before he ever considers this course of action again he must acquire at least *some* form of training.

 

[SFC JeffJ]

I think he did the right thing. The thing he did wrong was not having a plan outside of standing up to the thugs in the neighborhood. Glad he got the guy on video though. That should make things easier for the Law Enforcement there. Also shows the groin shot isn't always the fight ender people think it is. He should have kept on attacking afterwords. Of course he did miss out on rule one of a gunfight. But what else do you expect in Cali.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Was this a self-defense situation, or did it get turned into one by the victim?

Keep wondering what I would have done. Still not sure.

The article says:

Murthy's confrontation began at 3 in the afternoon at the corner of Arlington Avenue and 27th Street in southwest Los Angeles. The engineer was videoing traffic signals in a bid for a school traffic study. His camera was focused on cars whizzing through the intersection, but also captured a softer image of a man leaning against a lamppost.


Once the man spotted Murthy, he walked toward him. The camera kept rolling as the man tried to snatch it.

A struggle over a camera became a life-or-death fight. It was pure luck that no one was killed. The bullets that hit the pavement could have just as easily ricocheted off that hard surface and hit and injured or killed someone not even involved in the situation.

As the victim describes it, the thug drew a weapon after being kicked in the groin.

Is a camera worth your life? That's the question I'd be asking myself, and the answer would be 'no'. Cameras are replaceable, and lives are not.

If the man had been killed, what comfort would his widow or his children have in knowing that their father had stood up to a street punk?

I can truly appreciate the man's wanting to effect positive change in the world, and yes, citizens need to become more responsive to the crimes they see around them. Not by trying to personally subdue criminals, but by being alert, reporting crime, prosecuting criminals and being willing to be witnesses in court.

 

[MJS]

This is another situation where we don't know what would have happened. Yes, its easy to say give them what they want, but there is nothing to say that you won't be shot anyways. Here is a perfect example:

"When he told them he had no money, the gunman shot him in the arm, he told police. The projectile fractured his upper right arm and entered his chest cavity, police said"

So, as you can see, we can't assume that all will be fine and dandy if we comply. I say screw it, if there is a chance I'm going to get shot anyways, may as well make a strong effort to defend myself.

Would this have turned out differently if he was a trained person? Who knows, of course we would hope so. Then again, if someone has the will power, I'd be willing to bet that even an untrained person would still have it in them. Something like this though, I would say keep going until the threat is gone. In other words, unless that kick dropped that guy, which it seems like it pissed him off more than anything, keep hitting, kicking or whatever.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

I keep trying to tell people, and they keep failing to want to accept it--this is a purer, more virulent strain of scumbag coming down the pike nowadays such that you MUST ALWAYS ASSUME they mean to kill you if a weapon is present.

I cannot understand this fear of " oh, what if it gets me killed?" I could croak here in this chair in 5 seconds if that was what Fate decreed and there'd be ****all I could do to stop it. Why this excessive value of the one thing you are guaranteeed to lose? To the point it stops you from right action, however dangerous? No one WANTS to die, no one WANTS to be hurt, no one WANTS to have pain, well, we don't always get what we WANT, now do we.

No one can say until they're in it how they'll react, that's true. But I refuse to live in fear of death for daring to go about my life refusing to submit to violence.

You gotta die of something, might as well do it right. If there's an afterlife and I meet my family ancestors there, I want to have something interesting to tell them.

You basically have to treat this, if you once decide to go into it, as realizing that what you are doing at this point is avenging your own murder.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

This is another situation where we don't know what would have happened. Yes, its easy to say give them what they want, but there is nothing to say that you won't be shot anyways.

No, there is nothing to say that the man would not have been shot anyway. However, the assailant did not produce the gun from his pocket until he had been kicked in the 'nads. Would he have? Don't know. Of course the rules change when a gun is involved.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I keep trying to tell people, and they keep failing to want to accept it--this is a purer, more virulent strain of scumbag coming down the pike nowadays such that you MUST ALWAYS ASSUME they mean to kill you if a weapon is present.

If I read the article correctly, the weapon was not produced until the victim had kicked the assailant in the crotch. He clearly stated that the man was attempting to seize the camera.

I cannot understand this fear of " oh, what if it gets me killed?"

I don't fear dying (well, technically, yes, I do) but more that I don't want to die. It's not fear, it's a choice. I also do not want to leave my wife a widow - I have responsibilities here. I don't want to get speeding tickets, so I don't speed. I don't want to go to jail, so I pay my taxes. I don't want to die, so I try to avoid putting myself in situations where I might be killed.

I could croak here in this chair in 5 seconds if that was what Fate decreed and there'd be ****all I could do to stop it. Why this excessive value of the one thing you are guaranteeed to lose?

Because there are not any resets. Whether death is a doorway or the final ending, there isn't any coming back - at least, not to this life, which I like quite a bit.

To the point it stops you from right action, however dangerous?

What is right action? The prime directive of life is to live, to survive. Giving one's life or placing one's life in danger for the sake of another is quite understandable and what puts us apart from the animals. Defending one's own life when the stakes are clear is just as understandable. Fighting over a camera, to me, is not 'right action'.

No one WANTS to die, no one WANTS to be hurt, no one WANTS to have pain, well, we don't always get what we WANT, now do we.

No, of course not. But we do get to control some of our actions and reactions, which is something I try to do.

No one can say until they're in it how they'll react, that's true. But I refuse to live in fear of death for daring to go about my life refusing to submit to violence.

Why do you liken avoiding fighting to quivering in fear?

You gotta die of something, might as well do it right.

I agree. I just don't agree that dying over a camera in a purely voluntary struggle is 'doing it right'. I'll bet my wife would agree as well. She'd be darned ticked at me if I came home all dead and stuff.

If there's an afterlife and I meet my family ancestors there, I want to have something interesting to tell them.

If it means I don't get to have a feast waiting for me in Valhalla, I'm perfectly OK with that. I'm OK being considered a wimp, a weakling, a coward, or what-have-you. I was given this one life, and I like it, and I have no intentions of putting it at unnecessary risk by dying of lead poisoning that I could have avoided.

Again, 20/20 hindsight, but if we have to put ourselves in this man's situation, I have to say that I strongly believe I would have backed up and let him take the camera. I would have done my best to get a description to give to the police. If I saw him going into his pockets for what I would have to presume would be a weapon, then I would reevaluate the situation and perhaps take preemptive action.

I still believe self-defense starts before the violence does.

 

[MJS]

No, there is nothing to say that the man would not have been shot anyway. However, the assailant did not produce the gun from his pocket until he had been kicked in the 'nads. Would he have? Don't know. Of course the rules change when a gun is involved.

Personally, I'd rather lean on the side of caution and assume that there is a weapon. Its really no different than a LEO patting someone down. Sure the guy could claim that he had nothing, but the cop doesn't want to assume that.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Personally, I'd rather lean on the side of caution and assume that there is a weapon. Its really no different than a LEO patting someone down. Sure the guy could claim that he had nothing, but the cop doesn't want to assume that.

A police officer has a responsibility which an ordinary citizen does not have. It involves placing his or her life at risk which would otherwise be considered excessive, in order to keep the peace. This man is not a law enforcement officer.

As well, the 'Stop and Frisk' doctrine does not assume that every person an officer meets is armed. If it did, police would be authorized to draw his sidearm and execute a felony arrest on each and every citizen he meets. The SCOTUS also defines 'Stop and Frisk' as a 'brief pat-down', which is not a search, and may not in fact catch all weapons. 'Stop and Frisk' is intended for the officer's safety only - it does not assume that everyone is armed, it ensures that they are not.

Further - if the assailant had been a better shot, the man would be dead. He *did* assume the man was armed in the sense that he attacked him by kicking him in the pills.

Let's say the assailant killed the man. Now what? His wife is a widow, his kids are fatherless, then assailant still has the camera, the gun, and got away (at least for now).

 

[MJS]

If I read the article correctly, the weapon was not produced until the victim had kicked the assailant in the crotch. He clearly stated that the man was attempting to seize the camera.

I"m not Andy, but I'll toss my 2 pennies in. I addressed this in my other post.

I don't fear dying (well, technically, yes, I do) but more that I don't want to die. It's not fear, it's a choice. I also do not want to leave my wife a widow - I have responsibilities here. I don't want to get speeding tickets, so I don't speed. I don't want to go to jail, so I pay my taxes. I don't want to die, so I try to avoid putting myself in situations where I might be killed.

Likewise, I do my best to avoid certain things as well. However, sometimes trouble seems to find us anyways. Likewise, while I don't want to do certain things either, I also don't feel that I or anyone else, should have to be a victim to some punk. That is what these guys thrive on...fear and intimidation of others. While one person won't change the world, perhaps if everyone started to standup for whats right, eventually things may change.

Because there are not any resets. Whether death is a doorway or the final ending, there isn't any coming back - at least, not to this life, which I like quite a bit.

Like I said, if there is a chance that I may die anyways, may as well do it fighting.

What is right action? The prime directive of life is to live, to survive. Giving one's life or placing one's life in danger for the sake of another is quite understandable and what puts us apart from the animals. Defending one's own life when the stakes are clear is just as understandable. Fighting over a camera, to me, is not 'right action'.

So, I may as well just help the guy who is breaking into my condo, load his car with my tvs, computers, camera, cash, jewelery, etc. I'm sorry, but for me, I work hard for what I have and I don't feel that I should bow down to some dirtbag who wants my stuff. Its kinda like the bully in school. Keep giving them your lunch money and the problem will never end. Stand up to him, and if need be, smack him down a few pegs, literally if need be, then that problem may end.

No, of course not. But we do get to control some of our actions and reactions, which is something I try to do.

But to me, this is assuming that if we comply, we won't get hurt. I can try to control the outcome by giving the badguy my money, but when he opens it up and only sees $10, he may get pissed, and shoot me anyways, God forbid its not loaded with $50s.

Why do you liken avoiding fighting to quivering in fear?

Because in some cases, people are afraid to fight back. Sure, depending on the case, we could try to talk the guy down, etc., but we need to understand that it may not always work. We shouldn't look for fights, but on the other hand, we should not cower in the face of one either.

I agree. I just don't agree that dying over a camera in a purely voluntary struggle is 'doing it right'. I'll bet my wife would agree as well. She'd be darned ticked at me if I came home all dead and stuff.

So we hand the guy the cash, the keys to the car and now he wants to take my wife with him. Is that the time to decide that we better start acting? I say the time to act is when he's asking for our cash, keys and car.

If it means I don't get to have a feast waiting for me in Valhalla, I'm perfectly OK with that. I'm OK being considered a wimp, a weakling, a coward, or what-have-you. I was given this one life, and I like it, and I have no intentions of putting it at unnecessary risk by dying of lead poisoning that I could have avoided.

Again, 20/20 hindsight, but if we have to put ourselves in this man's situation, I have to say that I strongly believe I would have backed up and let him take the camera. I would have done my best to get a description to give to the police. If I saw him going into his pockets for what I would have to presume would be a weapon, then I would reevaluate the situation and perhaps take preemptive action.

I still believe self-defense starts before the violence does.

As I said above, I don't look for fights and do my best to avoid areas and things that may put me in a bad position. I just don't like stepping aside while the BG has his way with my car, cash or my house.

 

[MJS]

A police officer has a responsibility which an ordinary citizen does not have. It involves placing his or her life at risk which would otherwise be considered excessive, in order to keep the peace. This man is not a law enforcement officer.

As well, the 'Stop and Frisk' doctrine does not assume that every person an officer meets is armed. If it did, police would be authorized to draw his sidearm and execute a felony arrest on each and every citizen he meets. The SCOTUS also defines 'Stop and Frisk' as a 'brief pat-down', which is not a search, and may not in fact catch all weapons. 'Stop and Frisk' is intended for the officer's safety only - it does not assume that everyone is armed, it ensures that they are not.

I would be willing to bet that if we asked the LEOs on here or I asked the ones that I know personally, they'd all say to not assume anything. While I fully understand that a civilian is not a cop, my point was that like them, we should not assume that the BG is unarmed. Its the careless actions that will land people in harms way.

Further - if the assailant had been a better shot, the man would be dead. He *did* assume the man was armed in the sense that he attacked him by kicking him in the pills.

Possibly. However, I doubt that every dirtbag criminal has enrolled in the local NRA handgun course.

Let's say the assailant killed the man. Now what? His wife is a widow, his kids are fatherless, then assailant still has the camera, the gun, and got away (at least for now).

And like I said, if there is a chance that I'm going to die, may as well go out fighting. So basically you're saying that we should assume nothing will happen, comply fully and then, only if we feel our life to be in danger, should we act? I say our life is in danger the minute we're approached by the BG. I doubt that while I'm walking to my car at night, the guy coming up behind me wants to engage in friendly banter.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I"m not Andy, but I'll toss my 2 pennies in. I addressed this in my other post.

No problem!

Likewise, I do my best to avoid certain things as well. However, sometimes trouble seems to find us anyways. Likewise, while I don't want to do certain things either, I also don't feel that I or anyone else, should have to be a victim to some punk. That is what these guys thrive on...fear and intimidation of others. While one person won't change the world, perhaps if everyone started to standup for whats right, eventually things may change.

Andy mentioned that sometimes we don't get what we want. I'd agree with that. Sometimes, we have to be victims of punks. Sucks, huh?

And again, let's try not to go down that route of equating non-violent response with fear. Being accosted should generate fear, fear is a normal and healthy reaction. Fear should not control us, though, and that's part of what martial arts training can give us - mastery over our fear. It's still there, we just don't let it rule us or make decisions for us. So fear is a given. Deciding not to defend a camera with violence is not necessarily a fear-based reaction. It's the smart thing (my opinion) to do in many situations.

Like I said, if there is a chance that I may die anyways, may as well do it fighting.

I'd much rather not die at all, and if I must, then old age, in my sleep, having just had a ...oh, never mind, juveniles might read this.

Dying fighting seems so...pointless. If I was defending myself, apparently I lost. If I was defending someone else, well, I guess the bad guy got 'em after they got me. If I must fight, I'd much rather win and live.

So, I may as well just help the guy who is breaking into my condo, load his car with my tvs, computers, camera, cash, jewelery, etc. I'm sorry, but for me, I work hard for what I have and I don't feel that I should bow down to some dirtbag who wants my stuff. Its kinda like the bully in school. Keep giving them your lunch money and the problem will never end. Stand up to him, and if need be, smack him down a few pegs, literally if need be, then that problem may end.

With respect, I see your reaction as part of the essential problem.

Life is not grade school. It is important to stand up to bullies in school. That's because fighting is not life-endangering but status-establishing for children. It builds self-esteem, it establishes a place in the pecking order, and it is both healthy and natural.

It is neither healthy nor natural for adults, for whom fighting for real is no longer just fighting, but can easily end in serious injury or death.

I have said nothing about 'bowing down', or about helping someone cart off my property because they said 'boo'. I suggest that self-defense includes a rational evaluation of what is worth placing your life on the line for - and that a camera isn't one of those things.

But to me, this is assuming that if we comply, we won't get hurt. I can try to control the outcome by giving the badguy my money, but when he opens it up and only sees $10, he may get pissed, and shoot me anyways, God forbid its not loaded with $50s.

I have repeatedly said that the situation is subject to reevaluation at all times. In a sparring match, if you decide to throw a lot of kicks, and your opponent counters them easily, are you forced to keep throwing kicks? No, you throw some other technique at him. So, you let him have the camera, and then he decides to escalate. If you see that happening, you reevaluate and attack with as much speed and ferocity as you can muster.

Choosing not to fight isn't a matter of giving up. It's a matter of choosing when to fight and when not to. If the reason for fighting changes, then the decision changes.

Because in some cases, people are afraid to fight back. Sure, depending on the case, we could try to talk the guy down, etc., but we need to understand that it may not always work. We shouldn't look for fights, but on the other hand, we should not cower in the face of one either.

Again - choosing not to fight over a camera is not 'cowering'. That's the core of the problem - a culture that sees fighting as manly, and not fighting as cowardly. If it is cowardly to not want to be killed over a camera, then I can live with that. But it is unfortunate that you choose to see it that way.

So we hand the guy the cash, the keys to the car and now he wants to take my wife with him. Is that the time to decide that we better start acting? I say the time to act is when he's asking for our cash, keys and car.

The time to act is when the opportunity presents itself. Again, it is not a static decision, made once and then all thought of self-defense abandoned.

Man comes at me, clearly enraged, and makes a grab for my camera. I defend myself - I let him take the camera. I back off, keep his hands and legs in view, start looking for escape routes, paying attention to what he looks like, what he's wearing, and so on.

Man smashes the camera and leaves - game over.

Man runs away with the camera - game over.

Man throws the camera down, digs in his pocket and advances towards me - rethink strategy and start fighting.

As I said above, I don't look for fights and do my best to avoid areas and things that may put me in a bad position. I just don't like stepping aside while the BG has his way with my car, cash or my house.

Then you may (God forbid it) eventually be killed to satisfy your need to be live up to a false expectation of what being a 'man' in our society is. That, in my opinion, is not worth dying for, and I humbly suggest your wife and children would agree.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

If I read the article correctly, the weapon was not produced until the victim had kicked the assailant in the crotch. He clearly stated that the man was attempting to seize the camera.

This occasionally happens to me where I address generalities and it gets mistaken for talking about the original post. My apologies for not clarifying.*smack of forehead*

I don't fear dying (well, technically, yes, I do) but more that I don't want to die. It's not fear, it's a choice. I also do not want to leave my wife a widow - I have responsibilities here. I don't want to get speeding tickets, so I don't speed. I don't want to go to jail, so I pay my taxes. I don't want to die, so I try to avoid putting myself in situations where I might be killed.

On this point we agree andI think the wires got crossed over the misunderstanding of generalities versus original post.*smack*

Because there are not any resets. Whether death is a doorway or the final ending, there isn't any coming back - at least, not to this life, which I like quite a bit.

Got me at a disadvantage on that point, I'm afraid. Maybe that's something to do with it.

What is right action? The prime directive of life is to live, to survive. Giving one's life or placing one's life in danger for the sake of another is quite understandable and what puts us apart from the animals. Defending one's own life when the stakes are clear is just as understandable. Fighting over a camera, to me, is not 'right action'.

I've REALLY got to learn to do better at differentiating when I am addressing generalities and not the original post.*smack*

No, of course not. But we do get to control some of our actions and reactions, which is something I try to do.

yep.

Why do you liken avoiding fighting to quivering in fear?

I've REALLY got to.....*smack*

Again, 20/20 hindsight, but if we have to put ourselves in this man's situation, I have to say that I strongly believe I would have backed up and let him take the camera. I would have done my best to get a description to give to the police. If I saw him going into his pockets for what I would have to presume would be a weapon, then I would reevaluate the situation and perhaps take preemptive action.[

Well Addressing the original post (*SMACK*) , it says

"Once the man spotted Murthy, he walked toward him.
The camera kept rolling as the man tried to snatch it."

That says to me the scumbag just walked right up close enough to grab the camera, and therefore close enough to touch Murthy, *unchallenged*.

I don't know if your line of "what are you prepared to do" involves letting a known hostile walk that close unchallenged, But I for damnsure won't do it. If they do something like is described here, obviously "after" me, and they don't stop walking after I point and tell them, "that's close enough", and they keep walking up into my space,THEY GET STOPPED.

I still believe self-defense starts before the violence does.

As do I when I make clear what I'm talking about *smack*.

 

[SFC JeffJ]

Then you may (God forbid it) eventually be killed to satisfy your need to be live up to a false expectation of what being a 'man' in our society is. That, in my opinion, is not worth dying for, and I humbly suggest your wife and children would agree.

I think you are missing the point that Andy and MJS are making. I don't think it is an overinflated sense of manhood that makes them want to defend themselves against someone trying to take a video camera. I'm thinking that they are thinking as I am. You say constantly evaluate but you must also evaluate beforehand. If you wait for the BG to decide he doesn't want a witness after he's taken your property, you are even further behind the curve than if you acted immediately.

Not to put words in your guys's mouth, but this is my interpretation of what you are saying.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I would be willing to bet that if we asked the LEOs on here or I asked the ones that I know personally, they'd all say to not assume anything. While I fully understand that a civilian is not a cop, my point was that like them, we should not assume that the BG is unarmed. Its the careless actions that will land people in harms way.

I was a LEO. And no, one cannot assume a person does NOT have a weapon. We also could not assume they DID have one. That's the purpose of the 'Stop and Frisk' doctrine.

Nor would I assume as a civilian that an assailant was unarmed. However, let's just play that out - if the victim in this case had assumed the assailant was armed, how smart of him was it to kick him in the pills?

Possibly. However, I doubt that every dirtbag criminal has enrolled in the local NRA handgun course.

Both police and crooks are notoriously bad shots when shooting under the influence of adrenalin and fear. However, even a blind pig gets an acorn now and then. Just as you say it is not wise to assume a person is unarmed, I would say that if a man pulls a gun on me, it's a pretty good chance I'm going to get shot.

And like I said, if there is a chance that I'm going to die, may as well go out fighting.

I challenge that basic assumption. WHY?

So basically you're saying that we should assume nothing will happen, comply fully and then, only if we feel our life to be in danger, should we act?

Close. I don't assume anything, but I suggest that physical violence in self-defense is a life-or-death struggle. If I have to engage in it, I want to do so because I believe my life is in imminent danger. If I believe I can end an altercation by giving up a wallet or a camera, I will do so. I would expect that others would use their own best judgment at the time, based on their own beliefs and observations, not mine.

I say our life is in danger the minute we're approached by the BG. I doubt that while I'm walking to my car at night, the guy coming up behind me wants to engage in friendly banter.

I would doubt it too. I'm not some trusting soul who believes that others have my best interest at heart.

I will repeat - I continue to believe that self-defense begins before the violence does. That does not mean I eschew violence, and it does not mean I will not give my life to defend my own or the loves of innocent people or my family and loved ones. It means I don't want to throw my life away for a camera or a wallet or a car, when I can give those things up and live. If I feel that giving those things up will get me killed anyway, they I will respond differently.

The gentleman in the article did not say that he kicked the assailant in the slats because he thought he was going to be killed - maybe he did, but he didn't say that. He said he did it because he had read a recent news story about 'standing up' against bad guys in society and thought he should 'do something'. Well, he did, and he got shot. I do not agree with his reasoning based on what I have read, but I was not there. I can only say that I would have not done what he did in that situation if I understand his story correctly.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

If you wait for the BG to decide he doesn't want a witness after he's taken your property, you are even further behind the curve than if you acted immediately.

In this case, I do not agree. The man did not have the gun in his hand, it was in his pocket. Whether one fought with him (as the victim did) or surrendered the camera and then the man drew the gun, the gun has to be withdrawn from the pocket. That takes time whether the man had taken the camera first or not.

As well, the victim states that the man's attention was on the camera, not on him. That focus did not change until the victim kicked the assailant in the yarbles.

Is there time to successfully launch an attack and stop the gun from being pulled from the pocket and used? I don't know. But I do not believe in this case that any essential time would have been lost by surrendering the camera. In fact, him having the camera in his hands occupies one of them, making it harder for him to draw and fire a weapon unless he dumps the camera first, which would be a very good clue to what's coming. He might also decide to use the camera as a weapon instead, which would be easier to defend against than a gun.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

I think you are missing the point that Andy and MJS are making. I don't think it is an overinflated sense of manhood that makes them want to defend themselves against someone trying to take a video camera. I'm thinking that they are thinking as I am. You say constantly evaluate but you must also evaluate beforehand. If you wait for the BG to decide he doesn't want a witness after he's taken your property, you are even further behind the curve than if you acted immediately.

Not to put words in your guys's mouth, but this is my interpretation of what you are saying.

Pretty close.

We resist not for our wallet, though it be empty, not our car, though it be insured, we resist be cause free men and women resist. I don't care what they "claim" to be after once my "radar is tripped" the instant I percieve a threat I'm done talking anyway, and they will not have a chance to finish a sentence before I've drawn/acted/run/attacked/whatever needs doing.