Escalating Use of Deadly Force in Self-Defense

An armed attacker entered a restaurant in Cerritos, California. A good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy with a knife. That simple description covers an interesting story.

What we know- The crazy guy with a knife stole a truck from a young woman. He damaged the truck and dumped the vehicle in a shopping center. The crazy guy then ran into a nearby restaurant. He ran into the kitchen and food-preparation area. The attacker was already bleeding from a self-inflicted knife wound to his neck. The attacker threatened the restaurant staff. The staff ran out the back door of the kitchen and also ran out of the kitchen and into the dining area.

One of the customers sitting in the dining area was a gun owner. He had his California permit to legally carry his personal firearm concealed in public. He was armed that day. He was armed in the restaurant. He defended himself and other innocent parties.

The defender stood up and presented his firearms. He shouted “Stop! Drop the knife!” The attacker turned toward the defender and advanced with the knife in his hands. The defender shot the attacker. The attacker stopped advancing and fell to the ground. The defender stopped shooting. The defender remained at the scene and gave a statement to the police.

Let’s take a closer at what happened.

  • This was the middle of the afternoon on a weekday.
  • The defender stood up rather than retreating to a position of concealment and cover. That was the first rung on the use-of-force ladder. He said ‘I’m here and I see you.’
  • The defender presented his firearm. Now, both the attacker and the defender had weapons in their hands.
  • The defender issued a verbal challenge. He yelled “Stop!”
  • The attacker initiated the conflict by closing the distance to the defender.
  • The defender recognized an immediate, lethal, and unavoidable threat. Read those three terms carefully. All three must be present to justify the use of lethal force in self-defense. The defender did not have time to think and evaluate. He did have time to recognize a situation he had already considered and classified.
  • The defender used lethal force to stop the threat. The armed defender stopped using lethal force when it was no longer justified to do so. That could happen before the first shot, or after he fired every shot in the gun’s magazine.
  • The defender wore the mantle of innocence. He stayed at the scene. He holstered his firearm. He called the police or asked someone else to do so. He gave a statement to the police and cooperated in collecting evidence of what happened.

There is a lot more we want the good guy to do. Unfortunately, those sort of details aren’t covered in most news sources. Let’s speculate about what we might want to do.

Most attackers who use a weapon against innocent people are high or drunk. Don’t expect sane behavior from a crazy person.
Ask people to stay down. You don’t know if the attacker is a crazy person acting alone, or part of a robbery team. It might not be safe to stand and move around.
Can you take the knife or gun away from the wounded attacker without exposing yourself to danger? There are entire class segments devoted to how to secure a weapon that was used in a crime. When in doubt, leave that to the police.
Ask if anyone else is hurt and needs assistance. Is there a cook who was cut and is lying on the floor of the kitchen? Was one of the restaurant customers hurt when they dove for the floor? Was anyone else hurt by the shot you fired? The emergency response system might need to roll several teams if there are a number of injured victims.
Ask everyone to call 911. That gives the 911 system a list of cell phone numbers that were in the restaurant when the attack happened. Also, ask a particular staff member in the restaurant to call 911 and then stand next to you when they are on the line with the dispatcher. Since someone was shot, you want to ask for both police and emergency medical services.
If at all possible, you want to put your gun away before the police come through the door.
Do what the police tell you to do. It is there scene and they are responsible for what happens after they arrive.
Have a lawyer to call. Your lawyer will write out your official statement. His job is to be accurate and complete. He will explain why the use of lethal force was the safest course of action. At the scene, the most you can do is make sure the police don’t overlook obvious evidence. Once that is done, then be quiet and let your lawyer tell your story.

Despite its anti-gun politics, there are many millions of gun owners in California. California citizens in the Democrat-controlled costal counties might have a difficult time securing a carry permit. Citizens who live in inland counties have a much easier time.. and their permits are good in every county. Armed defense like this happens thousands of times every day.

To all the naysayers I’ve read online disparaging Jordan Salinas taking on the shooter with a 5.7;
Teddy Roosevelt told you off in 1910.
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better.
The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.

The people can not be all, and always, well informed.
The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive.
If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.

We have had 13 states independant 11 years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.

The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.
– Thomas Jefferson to William Smith (Son-in-law of John Adams)

The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. – St. George Tucker

Multiple dead, others injured in shooting at In-N-Out in Twin Falls, Idaho, officials say

Multiple people were killed and others were injured in a shooting Saturday afternoon at an In-N-Out in Twin Falls, Idaho, according to officials.

The shooter is dead, Josh Palmer, the city’s public information officer, said, and all shelter-in-place orders have been lifted.

“We believe that the threat to the community is over,” Twin Falls Police Chief Matthew Hicks told reporters Saturday evening.

The highly-anticipated burger chain had been open for only a week at its Twin Falls location, its new, beckoning storefront quickly becoming a local destination before the violence.

Video showed customers and In-N-Out workers, distinguishable by their red aprons and branded paper hats, running frantically into the parking lot as several shots were heard.

The incident joined a growing list of shootings in recent months that have sent people fleeing from ordinary places: a food festival, parades, places of worship and community gatherings across the country.

The suspected shooter “was nearby on the scene there, and we are working to try to ascertain his identity and the motivations behind that,” Hicks said.

Saturday’s shooting unfolded in one of Twin Falls’ busiest commercial areas, a stretch of the city’s north side filled with hotels, national retailers and restaurants that serve residents and travelers alike. Located approximately 130 miles southeast of Boise, Twin Falls is a regional hub for much of southern Idaho.

Twin Falls authorities have not provided the exact number of fatalities but earlier told CNN at least three people had been killed. It’s unclear if the shooter was included in that initial number.

Authorities believe there was one active shooter and are working “to determine now some of the other individuals who may have been involved in it,” Palmer told CNN.

Palmer advised the public to stay vigilant for more updates from police.

“I would caution people, we’re seeing a lot of misinformation on social media, so just be cautious,” he said.

The Twin Falls Police Department had urged residents to avoid the area, saying nearby roads and the Perrine Bridge, the primary crossing over the Snake River Canyon for miles, were closed.

Some of the state’s representatives in Washington, DC, said early Saturday they were thankful and praying for first responders.

“I’m grateful for the swift response of Idaho’s first responders,” said Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo on X.

Hancock Co. Prosecutor says deadly shooting of unarmed man falls under self-defense; no charges filed in road rage encounter

HANCOCK COUNTY, Ind. — Criminal charges will not be filed against a man who shot and killed an allegedly unarmed aggressor during a road rage confrontation in Hancock County.

The Hancock County Prosecutor’s Office says the road rage shooting falls under self-defense.

Previous reports detail the shooting, which took place on the afternoon of July 21. Police said the shooting was the result of a road rage confrontation and ended in the death of 37-year-old Kevin Powell of Indianapolis.

After the shooting, the gunman, who the prosecutor said was driving to work, stayed on scene and called 911.

“You know this is a tragic situation. There are no winners here,” said Hancock County Prosecutor Brent Eaton. “It’s really a terrible situation. We hate to see things like this happen.”

According to investigators, two vehicles — a Volkswagen Jetta and a Dodge Journey — had been traveling along the same path from Marion County into Hancock County. Witnesses claim the Dodge began following the Volkswagen at an extremely close distance, less than a foot off the other car’s bumper.

When the two vehicles stopped in a construction zone, Powell reportedly exited the Dodge Journey and “aggressively approached the Volkswagen,” according to the prosecutor’s findings.

One witness allegedly heard Powell tell the Volkswagen driver, “You shouldn’t be driving on my road that fast, motherf*****.”

A witness described Powell’s demeanor as “very hostile.”

After berating the Volkswagen driver, Powell reportedly started back toward his Dodge, but then turned around and headed back toward the Volkswagen. The Volkswagen driver stepped out of his vehicle armed with a handgun.

The prosecutor makes no mention of Powell ever being armed.

“I wouldn’t do that. Don’t do that. Get back in your car,” the Volkswagen driver allegedly told Powell. But Powell reportedly kept advancing.

The Volkswagen driver then fired several shots, striking Powell more than once.

Powell retreated to his vehicle and succumbed to his injuries, investigators said.

Witnesses later told police that at one point, Powell allegedly was heard saying to the Volkswagen driver, “Oh, you gonna get your gun? You afraid? You gonna get your gun? Well, come on, get out.”

“At every point the driver of the second vehicle (Powell) was the aggressor and was intent on escalating the situation,” said Eaton.

Prosecutor Eaton claims one independent witness said, “If I was put in that predicament, if I was the guy in the Volkswagen, I would have been scared for my life.”

“Objective observers, without any connection to either party, said it was their opinion the driver of the Volkswagen would have been in fear for his life from the manner he was approached,” said Eaton.

Because Powell allegedly threatened bodily harm to the driver, and the driver reportedly never approached Powell and only stood his ground at his own vehicle, the Hancock County Prosecutor’s Office determined the shooting to fall under Indiana’s self-defense law.

“The evidence in this case establishes that the Dodge driver followed the Volkswagen at an extraordinarily close distance; exited his vehicle and initiated the confrontation; aggressively approached the occupied Volkswagen; threatened bodily harm; challenged the Volkswagen driver to retrieve a firearm and exit the vehicle; briefly turned toward his own vehicle; and then renewed his approach despite repeated verbal warnings to stop and return to his vehicle,” the prosecutor’s office said.

In reviewing this evidence and consulting with Indiana’s Code on self-defense, Eaton said his office would not be filing criminal charges against the Volkswagen driver.

Before the deadly encounter, the shooter and Powell were total strangers.

“You know it’s tragic, because it’s avoidable. The driver of the second vehicle, there was no reason for him to get out of his car,” said Eaton. “The law in Indiana is clear. If you are in fear for your life, you do not have a duty to retreat and you are able to use deadly force and that’s what happened here.”

Why Gun Control Is a Non-Starter Even Without Second Amendment

Let’s play a little game; a thought experiment, if you will. Let’s say that there were no Second Amendment, that while owning guns was accepted and normal for generations, it wasn’t considered sacrosanct and thus not preserved in the Bill of Rights. Yes, for the pedantic among us, that would mean the Second Amendment would still exist; it would just forbid the quartering of troops against people’s will. Let’s not get bogged down in the details.

So, with that in mind, and assuming that past gun control efforts hadn’t come to fruition any more than they have in our version of the world, would violent crime make me inclined to support gun control now?

It would seem a simple question, and as one who has talked a lot about our right to keep and bear arms, it’s easy to say that I’d still say no. Yes, even if I had no grounds to argue it was a right.

Why?

Because the people asking me to support it don’t seem to care all that much about so-called gun violence.

I’ve covered the shooting in Tucson with a couple of posts. It’s gotten a little lost following Seattle, but it still happened, and while Seattle has shown that Washington state’s gun control policies failed, Tucson shows us something different.

The attack wasn’t a “random act of gun violence.” According to a news report by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the suspect, who was arrested and faces charges of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, aggravated assault with serious physical injury and discharging a firearm at a structure, should have been in jail at the time.

As NSSF pointed out, Pima County Attorney Laura Conover noted in an emailed statement that the suspect, 21-year-old David Leroy French, was previously charged for firing a weapon during an altercation, according to Arizona Family News. KOLD also reported that in October 2024, police said French fired a gun at the man and missed.

French could have gotten nine years — he got probation instead

While French could have faced up to nine years in prison, he did not serve any jail time. Instead, he was put on probation, and remained on probation at the time of the attack.

See, even without gun rights as a rallying cry, I would still see no reason to give up my guns when the problem is that so many of these incidents turn out to be criminals who should have been put in prison, but weren’t.

How are you going to tell me that lawfully obtained guns are the problem when you’re literally refusing to lock up those who criminally misuse a firearm? Just as I’d refuse to give up my car because of drunk drivers who won’t stop driving even without a license, I’m not going to give up my guns because of criminals who keep committing violent crimes when they should be worrying about not dropping the soap.

Luckily, the Second Amendment does exist. Gun rights do exist. The Second Amendment is the backbone of our defense of those gun rights.

Recently, I’ve been watching conspiracy theory videos for fun. The ideas of aliens from Atlantis building the pyramids, reptilians infiltrating the United States government, all sorts of things like that. No, I don’t believe in them, though the time since 2020 and Fauci’s diary might make me rethink some of this.

I bring this up because it’s harder and harder to tell myself that crap like this isn’t intentional. If you refuse to punish violent criminals, then use their violence to justify gun control, it’s hard not to see a connection there.

I’m not saying it’s on purpose. I will say, though, that if they were going to try and create more of a demand for gun control through increases in violent crime, I can’t think of anything I’d do differently.