To every poolhall and bar tough guy

ideologist

I don't never exaggerate
Silver Member
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that was a legal break.

I broke once and the cueball shattered. Debris all over the table, and balls pocketed. Opponent said it was now his turn, with a replacement cueball swapped in as it lies. Not a rebreak or something.
 

GaryB

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Guy was wound up way too tight. But none of us know what , if anything, happened earlier. Guy throwing the punches, I believe, had training in the ring at some point in his life. Punches were short combos. Nothing wild about it.

I couldn't believe the casualness of the guys at the bottom of the screen. Either the juke box was blaring or the fight was not that unusual in that bar. That part was hilarious.

I would also bet that no one that witnessed that was going to step outside with the aggressor.
 

TATE

AzB Gold Mensch
Gold Member
Silver Member
I would also bet that no one that witnessed that was going to step outside with the aggressor.

You might be surprised but they usually need a reason. I remember Mr. T., as imposing as he was, lamenting that he hated bars because someone would always want to fight him.

My take on it is this: The guy who swung the pool cue could have easily killed the drunk. It could have been a bar stool, an ashtray, a beer stein. If he had killed the man, was it worth it? Spend your life in jail because of a split second barroom brawl with a drunk? He made a foolish decision. Rarely is an angry decision a good one. There is no glory in knocking out an obnoxious drunk, but it happens all the time.
 
Last edited:

Bavafongoul

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Jimmyco......are you delusional or maybe not taking your meds properly?

Did anyone see me mention anything in my several posts about emptying my weapon?
Did anyone see me mention even any specific number of rounds to fire? Jimmyco?

You are absolutely wrong about how to apply deadly force. You do not shoot someone in
the head after putting a couple in the chest. And deadly force distance is considered to be
25’, not 21’ which is the old standard. If you put someone down and then deliver a kill shot
to the head, the assailant had better be holding a gun in his hand aimed at you. Two center
mass, one in the head is no longer recommended for defensive shooting. You have seen too
many episodes of SWAT or other cop shows. It just isn’t taught, at least not in California CCW
education. Put 2-3 center mass and your assailant is going down, especially with a .45....OMG.

You don’t then deliver a kill shot to the head because the threat has basically been eliminated.
If the assailant dies from the chest wounds, that’s just how things go. But a head shot afterwards,
pal, you better buy that insurance I mentioned because you and the local DA are going to have some
face to face chats that might not go the way you think it will. And remember, the distance is now 25 ft.

This thread is going off track and I am not helping the situation trying to educate you. Bye.
 

HNTFSH

Birds, Bass & Bottoms
Gold Member
Silver Member
Jimmyco......are you delusional or maybe not taking your meds properly?

Did anyone see me mention anything in my several posts about emptying my weapon?
Did anyone see me mention even any specific number of rounds to fire? Jimmyco?

You are absolutely wrong about how to apply deadly force. You do not shoot someone in
the head after putting a couple in the chest. And deadly force distance is considered to be
25’, not 21’ which is the old standard. If you put someone down and then deliver a kill shot
to the head, the assailant had better be holding a gun in his hand aimed at you. Two center
mass, one in the head is no longer recommended for defensive shooting. You have seen too
many episodes of SWAT or other cop shows. It just isn’t taught, at least not in California CCW
education. Put 2-3 center mass and your assailant is going down, especially with a .45....OMG.

You don’t then deliver a kill shot to the head because the threat has basically been eliminated.
If the assailant dies from the chest wounds, that’s just how things go. But a head shot afterwards,
pal, you better buy that insurance I mentioned because you and the local DA are going to have some
face to face chats that might not go the way you think it will. And remember, the distance is now 25 ft.

This thread is going off track and I am not helping the situation trying to educate you. Bye.

This is why they sell tape measure holsters. IWB preferred so as not to signal you're an expert.
 

jimmyco

NRA4Life
Gold Member
Silver Member
Jimmyco......are you delusional or maybe not taking your meds properly?

Did anyone see me mention anything in my several posts about emptying my weapon?
Did anyone see me mention even any specific number of rounds to fire? Jimmyco?

You are absolutely wrong about how to apply deadly force. You do not shoot someone in
the head after putting a couple in the chest. And deadly force distance is considered to be
25’, not 21’ which is the old standard. If you put someone down and then deliver a kill shot
to the head, the assailant had better be holding a gun in his hand aimed at you. Two center
mass, one in the head is no longer recommended for defensive shooting. You have seen too
many episodes of SWAT or other cop shows. It just isn’t taught, at least not in California CCW
education. Put 2-3 center mass and your assailant is going down, especially with a .45....OMG.

You don’t then deliver a kill shot to the head because the threat has basically been eliminated.
If the assailant dies from the chest wounds, that’s just how things go. But a head shot afterwards,
pal, you better buy that insurance I mentioned because you and the local DA are going to have some
face to face chats that might not go the way you think it will. And remember, the distance is now 25 ft.

This thread is going off track and I am not helping the situation trying to educate you. Bye.

What part of "reassess" do you not understand?
 

Bic D

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I actually have carried legally for 10 years. Laws in different states very. Unless you can prove your life is in danger , using a gun in a fist fight is not a going save your ass in court at least in this state buddy.

I was in law enforcement on the state and federal for 30+ years and I've never heard of any state requiring someone to "prove" their life was in danger before escalating the level of force to deadly. The standard has always been that a person can use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
 

HNTFSH

Birds, Bass & Bottoms
Gold Member
Silver Member
I was in law enforcement on the state and federal for 30+ years and I've never heard of any state requiring someone to "prove" their life was in danger before escalating the level of force to deadly. The standard has always been that a person can use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Yet the McCloskey's were charged with a felony in their own yard, without firing a shot, defending their life and property against rioting protesters.
 

Bic D

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Yet the McCloskey's were charged with a felony in their own yard, without firing a shot, defending their life and property against rioting protesters.

I doubt that even goes to trial and if it does, they will absolutely be found not guilty.

Most likely the DA will lose his job and may face criminal charges himself for not following the law and criminal misconduct in the handling of evidence.

The DA did nothing but pander and buckle under political pressure.
 

Franky4Eyes

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Typical night at the pool hall out here.
Man I can't wait for the rooms top open again.
I miss the excitement. Lol
 

ghost ball

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Jimmyco......are you delusional or maybe not taking your meds properly?

Did anyone see me mention anything in my several posts about emptying my weapon?
Did anyone see me mention even any specific number of rounds to fire? Jimmyco?

You are absolutely wrong about how to apply deadly force. You do not shoot someone in
the head after putting a couple in the chest. And deadly force distance is considered to be
25’, not 21’ which is the old standard. If you put someone down and then deliver a kill shot
to the head, the assailant had better be holding a gun in his hand aimed at you. Two center
mass, one in the head is no longer recommended for defensive shooting. You have seen too
many episodes of SWAT or other cop shows. It just isn’t taught, at least not in California CCW
education. Put 2-3 center mass and your assailant is going down, especially with a .45....OMG.

You don’t then deliver a kill shot to the head because the threat has basically been eliminated.
If the assailant dies from the chest wounds, that’s just how things go. But a head shot afterwards,
pal, you better buy that insurance I mentioned because you and the local DA are going to have some
face to face chats that might not go the way you think it will. And remember, the distance is now 25 ft.

This thread is going off track and I am not helping the situation trying to educate you. Bye.

What are you talking about? 2 to center mass and 1 to the head is taught. You are spreading FUD.
 

Snooker Theory

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I am not the expert you guys are, but isn't two to the chest, one to the head referred to as the "Failure to Stop drill", I thought it was two to the chest, one to the head, and the one to the head is only if the first two didn't stop them and they still pose a threat?

So are you guys saying the way it is taught is two to the chest and then 1 to the head even if they don't still pose a threat?
 

Korsakoff

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
This discussion seems to have drifted away from the original topic. But, the "two to the chest, one to the head" made me remember Collateral. Not a big Tom Cruise fan, but I probably like this one of his movies the best.

While Mick Gould did the actual training for this movie (and somewhere there is a good video about that), this breakdown of the alley scene by Larry Vickers is pretty good:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEZeb5lKPkk
 

alstl

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I doubt that even goes to trial and if it does, they will absolutely be found not guilty.

Most likely the DA will lose his job and may face criminal charges himself for not following the law and criminal misconduct in the handling of evidence.

The DA did nothing but pander and buckle under political pressure.

I'm in Missouri and used to live in St Louis - moved after 40 years of living there to get away from the crime. Kim Gardner is the DA. She won't lose her job. St Louis county prosecutor is no better.

People used to have a puzzled look when I told them I moved away from St Louis to get away from the crime. Since moving to Columbia I've had 2 murders on my block in drug deals gone bad and it is far safer here than St Louis. I think people are now beginning to understand what I'm saying about St Louis.
 

Z-Nole

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
You might be surprised but they usually need a reason. I remember Mr. T., as imposing as he was, lamenting that he hated bars because someone would always want to fight him.

My take on it is this: The guy who swung the pool cue could have easily killed the drunk. It could have been a bar stool, an ashtray, a beer stein. If he had killed the man, was it worth it? Spend your life in jail because of a split second barroom brawl with a drunk? He made a foolish decision. Rarely is an angry decision a good one. There is no glory in knocking out an obnoxious drunk, but it happens all the time.

A guy I’ve fished with my whole life was sitting with his wife at the bar when this happened. One guy is dead and an Ftard is looking at manslaughter. All of it could have been avoided.

https://www.tampabay.com/news/crime...cker-punched-outside-pinellas-beach-bar-dies/
 

GoldCrown

Be Creative...play 1P
Silver Member
I'm reposting this. A good read.


We seemed to have a number of recent threads and stories with a somewhat common theme. Someone gets slighted or bothered in public by another person and they feel the need to do or say something about it. From something overt like cutting in line at a Black Friday sale to just walking behind someone. Even playing music at a gas station. In each instance the person who got bothered or uncomfortable either felt like doing and saying something, or actually went ahead in did it. In one case, telling some kids to turn their music down ended in a shooting.

I think some of us are losing sight of the value of just walking away. There are two aspects to this. The tactical advisability of confrontation, and whether it's "right".

The tactical standpoint should be pretty straightforward. When you confront someone, you are introducing a possible flash point to an already unstable situation. You never know if those kids in the car, that obnoxious guy at the bar, those guys on the trail are violent felons, off duty cops, drug addicts, or just normal people who might act out when scared. Confrontation breeds confrontations. The "alpha male" aspect of someone's mind might act up and that guy you're just telling to back off cause he almost spilled your drink might just feel the need to punch you in the face because he's drunk and needs to feel like he's in charge. In the case of the line cutting last week, the line cutter actually did turn around and punch a guy. And then a weapon was produced and what could have been 2 minutes of a man just feeling pissed off turned into an entire self-defense legal ordeal. Over feeling offended.

The bottom line is, unless someone is directly threatening you, another person, or your property, just swallowing your anger and indignation and walking away is the best option in probably 99%+ cases.


The second aspect is whether or not it's "right". As in, do you actually have the right to ask something, or worse, try to "tell them". In some cases yes, in other cases no. Don't forget, you DO NOT have the right not to be offended. When you leave your property and enter the public, you become equal to every other citizen out there. Your desires, feelings, likes and dislikes, sense of honor, etc all are exactly equal to someone else's. If they make you uncomfortable...so what. They have the right to do so. If some stranger is doing something completely legal, non-threatening, and non-destructive; I'm sorry but you just don't really have the right to approach them and try to push your standard of behavior on them. You feel music should be listened to at one volume, they feel it should be at another. Who's right? In public, you both are. As long as it's legal. If I walk somewhere and you feel I'm "too close" or being behind you makes your comfortable...sorry but I have the right to walk where I want in public. Just like you do.

What can you do when someone does something in public you just don't like? Maybe he's standing too close, or listening to loud music, or he just looks funny. How about go somewhere else? That's usually the best bet. If you can't or don't want to do that, your only other option is to ask. And that means explicitly putting it in the form of a yes/no question. Meaning they do indeed have the right to tell you "no".

"Hey buddy, could you be so kind as to stand a little bit farther away?"
"Sure man" OR "No, I don't feel like it"

He has the the right to do what he wants in public. You may not like it, but he still does. Part of being an adult in public means learning to accept that there are times when other people enjoying their rights might make you feel uncomfortable. Just as your rights might make them uncomfortable. Your standard of behavior, your idea of "this is how people should act" can NOT be enforced on others.


If you try to "tell" them, it can end far far worse.

"Hey buddy, back off. You're standing too close"
"Make me"

Now what? How exactly do you enforce that? Push him? Punch him? Put your hand on your gun and say "you know, doing something like that is a good way to get a gun pulled on you"
Congratulations, you've now just lost all moral high ground and committed a crime. Now in addition to earning some very appropriate legal consequences for assaulting another citizen because "you felt uncomfortable", you now have the very real possibility he might respond to your force with force of his own. Now what?


How about instead of all of that, you pick up your drink, or get in your car, or sling your backpack...and just walk away. Your feelings are not worth getting hurt or hurting someone else over. Ever.
 
Last edited:

Bavafongoul

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Head shots are no longer taught, nor recommended, in CA CCW classes. Take one and find out.
Instead, center cavity aim and ballistics prove today’s ammunition is deadlier and penetrate better.

You can shoot someone anywhere on their person in self defense. But to avoid problems, after you
just shot someone a couple times in the chest region, a head shot is generally not needed & the DA
doesn’t like controversial shootings. Under most circumstances, a head shot under stress is difficult.

If you have a CCW permit and carry, just remember that you have a legal right to defend yourself but
you are not empowered to decide if someone lives or dies after stopping the attack. Shoot them in the
head first and then the body, it serves up differently. Do the reverse, and it could lead to problems.

Remember.....anyone taking a CCW course in order to legally carry needs to remember this. Once the
immediate threat is eliminated or stopped, deadly force should not and legally cannot be used thereafter.

There are some states that allow every resident to pack without any permit and that includes open carry.
That’s a formula straight from the old Wild West days so obviously CCW requirements & training are moot.

Forum members.....take the time to learn firsthand about your local gun laws & always abide by your CCW
training. In some states, laws will vary and certainly at the local level, every DA is an independent soul. So
you’re always at the mercy of someone else’s opinion of what happened Just do it right to avoid problems.
This becomes very important if & when the opinions are being rendered by a jury of one’s peers. Be smart.
 

Biloxi Boy

Man With A Golden Arm
Here, an aggravated assault had occurred, but it was an accomplished fact. The perp abandoned use of a deadly implement and de-escalated to fists. (Use of fists alone can result in an aggravated assault if the resulting injuries are severe.) If the victim, or any observor, had a reasonable belief that the current actions (not prior use of implement) posed a risk of death/severe injury then use of deadly force may be justified. The issue of self defense may be determined by:
Police -- arrest/no arrest
Prosecutor -- prosecute/decline
Grand Jury -- indict/no true bill
Jury -- guilty/not guilty

Ultimately, societal attitudes regarding guns and self defense reflected through the jury will control one's fate, and verdicts will vary from area to area even though identical factual scenarios are considered. This, to me, presents an intolerable delimna. The bottom line is that deadly force is not appropriate in a questionable situation -- if you hesitate or question, then don't. In the appropriate situation, use of deadly force in self defense will be compelled by the nature of the assault.
 
Last edited:
Top