16 May 24
“It’s not about what people claim.
It’s about what the other side believes you might do to them.”
John Mearsheimer
On 8 Feb 24, at a swank concert in Scottsdale, AZ, a woman (an attendee) noticed an angry, drunken man tearing-down barricades at the event’s entrance.
She said something to him, and he responded by charging at her and violently knocking her to the pavement where she suffered injury (non-fatal)
He was immediately restrained and arrested by local police at the scene.
Curiously, this perpetrator is a local practicing MD (with an apparent drinking problem).
As you might imagine, the doctor is currently “guest-of-honor” in a lawsuit!
Lessons:
1) Voluntarily inserting yourself into a situation in which you were otherwise not involved is almost always a bad idea, particularly when you go armed. “Inserting yourself” can be as subtle and non-threatening as politely asking someone to stop what they’re doing, as was the case here!
2) “Symbolic barriers” are just that, and nothing more. “Gentlemen don’t hit women” is an axiom of chivalry, observed only by the honorable.
3) Those under the influence of ethyl-alcohol, or any number of other mood-altering drugs (legal and illegal), are, if anything, unpredictable. As with wild bears, anyone who thinks he knows what a drunk will do next is already in trouble!
4) The “well to do” status of certain events provides no guarantee of anyone’s personal safety. “Security theater,” thrown-together in order to minimally satisfy some arbitrary requirement by naive insurance companies (who couldn’t care less about anyone’s safety), or a vague local ordnance (written by people who care even less than that), is little more than a “Dog & Pony Show.”
When someone says, “Don’t worry. You’re safe here,” never believe it!
4) “Assertiveness,” even when well-intentioned, may be seen by local prosecutors as “provocation.”
Responsible citizens often take exception to those who are behaving badly and (as noted above) subsequently “get involved” in an effort to “correct” the offender. This is surely understandable, maybe even commendable, but extreme risk attaches!
Had the female victim in this case forcibly protected herself from this attack, a local prosecutor might well have charged her with unlawful battery, because “she started it” with her comment.
Many gun-carriers fail to appreciate how wide a net “provocation” can become in self-defense cases!
“Some people take offense like it’s a ‘limited time offer’”
Tim Fargo
/John
