The "He Shouldn't Have Been There In The First Place" Argument

[Sanch]

I've seen this come up a lot recently in threads with rioting. Most recently in the ABQ thread where the shooter was righteous in self defense but he "shouldn't have been there in the first place" to defend the statue. I have mixed feelings about this and am curious to see a discussion on it. I tend to agree that that guy shouldn't have been there, but I wonder what the objective measurement of that means.

If looters/rioters/arsonists are threatening your business, standing in front with a gun to protect it. Seems reasonable.
Is the same bad people are threatening a statue, owned by the government, which means it's owned by the tax payers, which means you paid for it. Seems less reasonable.

Is it just a matter of ownership level? Whereas you own a larger percentage of the business than the statue? Because while that's true, most business owners own a lot less of their business than 100%. Most lease the building which is owned by the landlord. Most take out business loans to pay for inventory which is owned by the bank. The real ownership claim is to future income, whereby if the business is destroyed, you won't have an income until it's rebuilt. And loss of income is a meaningful problem for your life, whereas loss of a statue isn't a meaningful problem.

But what if the loss of the statue is meaningful? What if it represents the descent into chaos and erosion of law and order? Once the statue goes, it's a slippery slope with momentum as to what's next, so you decide to take a stand with a few of your armed friends because PD refuses to do so. Phrasing it like that seems more reasonable, not to the point where I personally would do it. But I understand.

What if your residential neighborhood was under siege by the looters/arsonists? Standing outside with a gun seems reasonable. But what if your same home was in the path of a wildfire or hurricane? Then leaving seems more reasonable. Why wouldn't we argue that if the mob is angry enough, you should flee your home instead of causing loss of life to the rioters? Did the rioters forfeit their right to live by threatening your personal property? Or is the argument that fleeing your home puts you in greater risk, because once you leave the structure, the rioters might violently attack you and your family? What if the rioters are systemically going block to block destroying houses and they are 30 minutes away from yours, giving you time to safely flee, does that make a difference? Or is it that defending your home with guns against an angry mob is more likely to be successful than anything an individual can do against a hurricane or wildfire?

We've seen in recent weeks cases of business owners defending their stores with guns, only to have to apologize on social media the next day and promise never to do that again. Because of the backlash from the liberals which then threaten the economics of their business when they want to re-open.

How about going to bars at night? The old adage of don't go to stupid places with stupid people and do stupid things. If someone goes to a bar, and then winds up in a self-defense shooting situation, would we say "well he shouldn't have been there in the first place"

And does it matter what type of bar? What if it's a really seedy bar known to be the hangout of motorcycle gangs or mexican cartel gang bangers. Well that seems unreasonable to ever go there, so if a person gets involved in a shootout there, do we chastise him for shouldn't have been there? At what point does the danger level of bar switch from reasonable to go to, over to well he shouldn't have been at that bar in the first place?

George Zimmerman, a good shoot, but he shouldn't have gotten out of the car in the first place.

Avoidance is always key, but there seems to be a lot of subjectivity in delineating what activities are reasonable or unreasonable to do in the course of your everyday life, whether it be attending protests, going to bars, being part of neighborhood watch, etc.

I don't have the answer, that's why I'm posting this to get people thinking and talking. Maybe there isn't an answer and the "reasonable person" test applies on a case by case basis. But that scares me, because what if the government gets really overbearing, and people are afraid to protest because of how dangerous the protests are, and then no "reasonable person" would go to such protest against the government. That would have a chilling effect.

[JHC]

In the ABQ shooting, seems the shooter joined a riot same as the statue destroyers. His display of stupidity in doing so monumentally outstrips nuances of the ownership of the statue IMO. Effectively he volunteered for mutual combat, in a riot.

[Joe in PNG]

Look at this in the light of the Reasonable Man standard.
Is this something that a reasonable person not looking for trouble would do? Is this a place that a reasonable man looking to avoid trouble would willingly go?

[BehindBlueI's]

My thought process remains "am I willing to get in a shooting over this" for any optional confrontation. ABQ guy was actively inviting involved in a confrontation. He was a willing participant. Attending a protest/counter-protest vs physical contact with the other side is a bit different then just 'being there' but either way I don't care enough about a statue's destruction of preservation to get in a shooting over it.

[Joe in PNG]

My thought process remains "am I willing to get in a shooting over this" for any optional confrontation. ABQ guy was actively inviting involved in a confrontation. He was a willing participant. Attending a protest/counter-protest vs physical contact with the other side is a bit different then just 'being there' but either way I don't care enough about a statue's destruction of preservation to get in a shooting over it.

While technically public property belongs to me, I'm not paid to protect it, nor do I get qualified immunity for defending it, nor do I get any real public help (aside from a public defender) for any legal cost. Why should I?

[BehindBlueI's]

While technically public property belongs to me, I'm not paid to protect it, nor do I get qualified immunity for defending it, nor do I get any real public help (aside from a public defender) for any legal cost. Why should I?

Depending on your finances, you may not even get a public defender.

[RevolverRob]

Sometimes, you're in the wrong place at the wrong time, despite your best intentions.

It is easy to say, "They shouldn't have been there. That's a bad part of town/a bad bar/etc. Many folks know that it's a bad place to be." - That assumes that the individual in question had the foreknowledge of the place. I have traveled quite a bit for work over the last ~decade, to include travel to many places I have never been before. I used my better judgement on the ground to steer myself around and avoid sketchy places. But still, it's quite possible, I could have ended up in a sketchy bar in New Mexico without intending to, because I did not have the foreknowledge of the area.

If something had gone down then, I could well have been the "he shouldn't have been there" - guy. But honestly, the argument would have lost it's strength, because it presupposes knowledge I did not and reasonably could not have had.

___

That said, the argument gains strength back - when people who live within/near the place you shouldn't have been - and choose to go there of their own accord - end up in trouble.

A lot of folks, put themselves in bad situations, unintentionally at times, by not exercising sound judgement and common sense. We know common sense isn't common, but you have a higher standard to achieve if you willingly choose to arm yourself.

[entropy]

I’m none too happy about many of the things transpiring this election year. However, this event seems to fall into the “stupid people/places/things/prizes category. Just my opinion presently.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Don't take a knife to a gun fight and don't take a gun to protect a statue.

Yeah, sometimes you end up in a bad place. However common sense is your best friend. Went to the movies with the wife and kid, they wanted to go to the fancy ice cream store after and I said, it's close to closing time and that's when places get hit.

They said, you have a gun. I said, that's why we are not going there.

[Casual Friday]

Just because you have a right to be someplace doesn't mean you should be there. Cases like this are a prime example of that.

I'm not risking years away from my wife and kids over a statue of a Conquistador.

[Totem Polar]

This reminds me of that couple that went-a-boogaloing (UofW Seattle, at a protest because Milos Y is a huge trigger) back in ‘17, and the hubby ended up shooting someone. No thanks.

If I’m out for my regular evening walk with my wife—who still can’t run—and we get swept up in some sort of flash mob protest, that’s a shit sandwich.

If I drag her *to* a flash mob protest, I ordered the sandwich. JMO.

[MickAK]

We're coming off an entire generation whose response to increasing violence and crime in the cities was to flee to the suburbs. People that are losing their constitutional rights are advised to 'move to a free state' and 'just get out of there'.

You're going to run out of room to run. If you don't, your children will. A lot of you already have.

Pretty soon, the stupid place will be your country and the stupid thing will be living your life by your principles.

[willie]

ABG Guy's 1st cousin is Florida Man. He should have kept his ass at home. One reason is that he complicated the situation for police. At my inner city high school, I could have got into a fist fight every day by purposely talking shit. The kid would have been punished for something that I incited. Same thing is true in a correctional setting. Same thing is true in cops' world in some parts of some locales.

[trailrunner]

He didn't take a wrong turn in an unfamiliar city and wind up in the wrong place.

He wasn't at his home, and he wasn't at his business.

He chose to go to a place where there was a good chance that it would be chaotic, emotional, and there would at least be violence against a statue.

He also didn't just stand in the distance watching. He was in the scrum.

So far, so good. So far he's violated the stupid-places with stupid-people guidance, but he has a right to attend a protest as to be as close as he wants.

But then he went hands-on with someone. One of the things I learned in my classes is that if you are armed and someone bumps you, you pretend it didn't happen, apologize (even if it wasn't your fault), and back away. The lady that was blocking him was an ass, but she wasn't threatening his life. Instead, he called the lady's bump and raised the bet by throwing her down. And the lady he bumped was with a bunch of her friends. In my mind, that's where I lost a lot of sympathy for him.

But none of this is a legal opinion on whether he was justified in shooting. I'm just saying that in my mind, the situation that he got himself in is far beyond the innocent "wrong place and the wrong time" situation.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

We're coming off an entire generation whose response to increasing violence and crime in the cities was to flee to the suburbs.

Where have you been, flight from changing city areas has been going on for many, many years? So, my aging mother should have taken Geezer-fu to fight the muggers, or move to a different area.

It is sad that this happens, but posturing is ridiculous. Clint Eastwood, can put on his Depends and get his Garand and stand on the lawn. That isn't going to work for most folks. You can send your kid to a crappy school.

It's tragic that this happens but movement is a fact of life. The reason most of our families are here is because the 'motherland' sucked.

[entropy]

Ability/opportunity/intent is a double edged sword.

[jellydonut]

While we can all agree that attending a riotous protest is an objectively bad decision, there also seems to be wide consensus that riotous protests are an important freedom. Apparently more important than the livelihoods that have been flushed down the toilet attempting to combat a pandemic through lockdown, so pretty important, I suppose.

He made the decision to be there and express his opinion, and he was attacked by an armed mob. It was righteous self-defense, regardless of what you think of his choice to be there.

[RevolverRob]

While we can all agree that attending a riotous protest is an objectively bad decision, there also seems to be wide consensus that riotous protests are an important freedom.

I'm not sure I see a 'wide' consensus in this regard. Consensus among a certain subset of individuals (likely those who are rioting or are profiting from the unrest), but not a wide consensus.


He made the decision to be there and express his opinion, and he was attacked by an armed mob. It was righteous self-defense, regardless of what you think of his choice to be there.

I think that's the real disconnect - just because we want things to be different doesn't mean they are. Whether you agree or not with his decision to be there, it appears to be an open and shut case of righteous self-defense.

Well...I hope he can get a jury that sees that, as opposed to a jury that just sees "Redneck Militia Member Shoots Kid". Because the latter is very likely to occur in ABQ. And while many of us would likely find it a righteous shoot if we were on the jury - none of us would ever be on the jury. Ultimately, the letter of the law and the political optics of the situation make it difficult to get a fair trial - pretty much regardless.

So - It's better to err on the side of caution. At least in my opinion.

[LittleLebowski]

I agree that he shouldn't have been there, but I think it was a justified shoot.

[BehindBlueI's]

He made the decision to be there and express his opinion, and he was attacked by an armed mob. It was righteous self-defense, regardless of what you think of his choice to be there.

You're leaving out the part where he got into a physical altercation with a member of the opposing mob and escalated the situation. He threw a woman to the ground who was actively blocking his ability to pass, escalating the situation. He was *not* just there and expressing his opinion at that point. He was entering mutual combat. Like I said in the other thread, I think it's a legally good shoot and am now fairly iffy on if the initial throwing was battery or not, but he wasn't simply expressing his opinion and getting attacked for it.

[blues]

You're leaving out the part where he got into a physical altercation with a member of the opposing mob and escalated the situation. He threw a woman to the ground who was actively blocking his ability to pass, escalating the situation. He was *not* just there and expressing his opinion at that point. He was entering mutual combat. Like I said in the other thread, I think it's a legally good shoot and am now fairly iffy on if the initial throwing was battery or not, but he wasn't simply expressing his opinion and getting attacked for it.

I agree. He would appear to have regained his "innocence" by retreating from the area prior to the attack upon him. The two incidents then become distinct and should be judged upon their own merits.

[trailrunner]

He made the decision to be there and express his opinion, and he was attacked by an armed mob. It was righteous self-defense, regardless of what you think of his choice to be there.

He did more than express his opinion. He wasn't standing there passively with a sign saying "hooray for our side." He put his hands on a person and threw her to the ground. I'm not saying that she didn't contribute to the situation, and I'm not saying that his shooting wasn't justified, but the situation is a little different than you portray it.

[SCCY Marshal]

What happened before the lady hit the ground? Why was she blocking him? Right now, I see an arm bar-ish takedown to clear somone blocking his lawful path. But the important context for the start of the interaction is completely missing in video I've seen and I have better things to do with my day than look for more. So I can't have an opinion there.

As for whether or not he should have been there to begin with, don't care. Heated crowds may well be dangerous. Attending protest put your future in the hands of a mob. But 1A exists and I can't conscience giving a person flak for exercising it. Even though I wouldn't personally have been there for God or mammon.

[JRB]

I'm not sure I see a 'wide' consensus in this regard. Consensus among a certain subset of individuals (likely those who are rioting or are profiting from the unrest), but not a wide consensus.



I think that's the real disconnect - just because we want things to be different doesn't mean they are. Whether you agree or not with his decision to be there, it appears to be an open and shut case of righteous self-defense.

Well...I hope he can get a jury that sees that, as opposed to a jury that just sees "Redneck Militia Member Shoots Kid". Because the latter is very likely to occur in ABQ. And while many of us would likely find it a righteous shoot if we were on the jury - none of us would ever be on the jury. Ultimately, the letter of the law and the political optics of the situation make it difficult to get a fair trial - pretty much regardless.

So - It's better to err on the side of caution. At least in my opinion.

Rob, you're a good dude, but you really ought to spend more time in NM before opining on this kind of shit. JodyH laid it out quite accurately in the other thread, and I say that as a nearly lifelong resident of ABQ.

Edit:: As a second point, and to frame how stupid we are for willingly 'eating our own' with minutia of who exactly started what when - the side that young woman represented is basically calling for everyone's rolling decapitated head that held an opposing opinion at that event, and nowhere in their 'discussion' is acknowledgement of *our* side's right to defend ourselves under any circumstances.

[BehindBlueI's]

Attending protest put your future in the hands of a mob. But 1A exists and I can't conscience giving a person flak for exercising it. Even though I wouldn't personally have been there for God or mammon.

Yeah, I think the "can you legally do this" and the "is the risk worth it" arguments are certainly distinct. I know we have several people on the forum who've been through the legal aftermath of a shooting incident in the states and even the absolutely most blatantly justified can be burdensome to the shooter. Just the process of being investigated is stressful, often IMO more stressful then the shooting itself. Kind of the basis for my rule.

[JodyH]

"But I had the right-of-way!" doesn't impress the tow truck driver or EMT's at all.

[RevolverRob]

Rob, you're a good dude, but you really ought to spend more time in NM before opining on this kind of shit. JodyH laid it out quite accurately in the other thread, and I say that as a nearly lifelong resident of ABQ.

Well, I hope that turns out to be true. But I admit I don't have a lot of faith of drawing a sympathetic jury in any urban area.

And man I read Jody's breakdown and it didn't give me any greater confidence there either. Is there something I was missing there?

[Casual Friday]

Well, I hope that turns out to be true. But I admit I don't have a lot of faith of drawing a sympathetic jury in any urban area.

And man I read Jody's breakdown and it didn't give me any greater confidence there either. Is there something I was missing there?

Yeah, they live there and you don't.

[JRB]

Well, I hope that turns out to be true. But I admit I don't have a lot of faith of drawing a sympathetic jury in any urban area.

And man I read Jody's breakdown and it didn't give me any greater confidence there either. Is there something I was missing there?

Shooter is a dude named Baca, now-leaky knifey skater boy is an asshole white kid with, apparently, a record of some kind. Jury pools tend to be around 50-70% Hispanic and those old Hispanic surnames carry weight in NM.

[RevolverRob]

Shooter is a dude named Baca, now-leaky knifey skater boy is an asshole white kid with, apparently, a record of some kind. Jury pools tend to be around 50-70% Hispanic and those old Hispanic surnames carry weight in NM.

Thank you.

That is the context I was missing. I got the working class Hispanics part from Jody's posts before, I got that the dude was Hispanic and kid was white and that would play a role. A 70% Hispanic jury could make a big difference, as opposed to the 20-30% you'd find in a number of urban areas. I did not know that Baca was a name with potential weight behind it in New Mexico.

[Casual Friday]

Just because you have a right to be someplace doesn't mean you should be there. Cases like this are a prime example of that.

I'm not risking years away from my wife and kids over a statue of a Conquistador.

Just to expound on this a bit. I have found myself in places that I had no business being and should have known better. Most, if not all were during my high school years or up until I was 21 or so. The most notable was the 1999 WTO protests in Seattle. We weren't there to protest, we went just so we could see it first hand. I didn't even know what the WTO was or why all the smelly hippies were mad at them. Looking back I have a hard time understanding how I thought it would be a good idea. Youthful ignorance? Probably. I was 19.

[JodyH]

I did not know that Baca was a name with potential weight behind it in New Mexico.
There's a reason our whitebread Karen Governor has Michelle Lujan Grisham on everything.
Spanish surnames carry weight with the Hispanic community in New Mexico (even if the family isn't actually well connected, or Spanish).
Note that I said Spanish surnames and not Mexican.
It's a class thing here and the Hispanic community loves "their" Spanish heritage (even if they are the equivalent of an Italian guy pretending to be an Indian for a TV commercial).

btw: to know if a name carries weight in NM, Google to see if there's a land grant attached to the name.
ex. Google: "Baca Land Grant New Mexico" , if you get a hit (and you will) having that surname is definitely not going to hurt you in this state.

[RevolverRob]

As a Texan with Mexican heritage - it strikes me as very odd that anyone would care about the Spanish.

But you know - it takes all kinds.

[Caballoflaco]

As a Texan with Mexican heritage - it strikes me as very odd that anyone would care about the Spanish.

But you know - it takes all kinds.

Do a google search and some reading on New Mexican Spanish. It’s a distinct dialect that can trace its roots back to the Conquistadors.

If I’m wrong hopefully JRB or JodyH will throw the bullshit flag, but these folks are similar to the the real Cajun/Creole folks in Louisana in that they maintained a distinct culture and language that became indigenous to the local, they trace their roots back to before the area was part of the United States, and like most such communities they’re changing but the old bloodlines and names are still known and important.

Eta: The Comanche are the reason this isn’t a thing in Texas.

[JRB]

Do a google search and some reading on New Mexican Spanish. It’s a distinct dialect that can trace its roots back to the Conquistadors.

If I’m wrong hopefully JRB or JodyH will throw the bullshit flag, but these folks are similar to the the real Cajun/Creole folks in Louisana in that they maintained a distinct culture and language that became indigenous to the local, they trace their roots back to before the area was part of the United States, and like most such communities they’re changing but the old bloodlines and names are still known and important.

That's almost exactly the case. Specifically a lot of those names and their homesteads all over NM date to the 16th and 17th centuries. Spanish was spoken in NM for hundreds of years before the first word of English was ever uttered here.
There are some smaller towns in Northern NM where you'll hear dialects of very old Spanish still in common use, and it's pretty easily discerned from modern Mexican Spanish if you hear the two side by side.

Naturally, folks from those old homesteads are immediately and *very* cross with anyone that mistakes them for 'Mexicans'.

[RevolverRob]

I have been educated in this regard today. My apologies to anyone who was offended, I definitely lacked the context to understand the historical nuance and importance of certain aspects of New Mexican culture.

And I can get why the New Mexican 'Spaniards' get offended if they are called Mexicans...I'd be offended too if my heritage was conflated as being the conquered instead of the conqueror. :eek: :p

(I kid, I kid...mostly)

[JodyH]

I have been educated in this regard today. My apologies to anyone who was offended, I definitely lacked the context to understand the historical nuance and importance of certain aspects of New Mexican culture.

And I can get why the New Mexican 'Spaniards' get offended if they are called Mexicans...I'd be offended too if my heritage was conflated as being the conquered instead of the conqueror. :eek: :p

(I kid, I kid...mostly)

I'm Texas born and raised but my Dad's family is half Northern New Mexico area Indians (I've found name change records for relatives going back to the early 1800's in Taos area Catholic church records), so I should probably be using a lot more ethnic slurs to describe all the Hispanics in New Mexico.
:p

[Casual Friday]

Yeah, they live there and you don't.

After reading this I realized it came across way snarkier than intended. Apologies to RevolverRob

[RevolverRob]

After reading this I realized it came across way snarkier than intended. Apologies to RevolverRob

Absolutely forgiven. I got where you were coming from.

[Wise_A]

There are a couple ways I like to use the "shouldn't have been there". None of them are really legal, as I'm never really concerned with legality, and more concerned with the age-old debate of "Was he stupid?". Really, I'd only throw it out there in the most extreme of cases.

First, there's the question of whether to bring a gun someplace. I understand the "I carry wherever/whenever legal" argument, especially in the context of some of our nation's finer warzones. And I understand that I'm willing to make certain lifestyle compromises--I don't go to bars at all, for instance, and don't drink at all when I'm packing--that maybe some other people aren't. Equally-important is the necessity of going to a particular place. I've a lot more sympathy for someone that gets into an altercation waiting for a bus to get home from work at 3AM versus someone that gets mugged hitting up the ATM at that time in between the bar and the strip club. Again, nothing to do with legality, everything to do with whether you're retarded.

Second, I feel that what you're packing plays a role. ABQ guy, as far as I saw, just had a regular ol' concealed handgun. We're gun enthusiasts, we know what reasonable, everyday carry gear looks like. The Seattle Dude that drove into a crowd of protesters and shot one of them, on the other hand, had an extended magazine inserted in something in the G19-size, with a standard capacity magazine taped or banded to it, thus rendering the standard-length magazine unusable--to say nothing of the fact that taping handgun magazines is fucking stupid. If someone is going to make such poor gear choices, then naturally, I'm going to presume that they're just generally a dumbass that doesn't take lethal force seriously.

What you're packing, for me, also plays a role in intentionality. If you're packing an AR-15, drum magazine, chest carrier/plate, and boog blu-light special helmet to a protest, then one of the following must be true:

(A) "I gots mah gear becuz ANTIFA is dangerous!" Then why are you there, you're a dumbass.
(B) "These protests are peaceful!" Then why are you dressing from Amazon's SEAL Team 6 Collection, you're a dumbass.

With respect to ABQ Guy, I wouldn't say he rose to that level. It wasn't a place I'd be or take a gun, but it also wasn't completely foolish.

[FrankinCA]

I saw more video footage. The person in question grabbed a protester and threw her down. That set off the chain of events...

If I’m carrying, I would avoid any gathering like this. Any confrontation can become armed very quickly...

[HCM]

I saw more video footage. The person in question grabbed a protester and threw her down. That set off the chain of events...

If I’m carrying, I would avoid any gathering like this. Any confrontation can become armed very quickly...

Avoiding such gatherings is wise but you might want to look at more video footage.

The female who was thrown down was one of several protesters who was physically blocking the person in question from leaving. That is what set off the chain of events.

[Wise_A]

56053

I've only seen the one shaky video that swings from the statue directly to ABQ Shooter getting decked in the face.


If I’m carrying, I would avoid any gathering like this. Any confrontation can become armed very quickly...

I agree, and I'm reconsidering the level of stupidity involved. Partially because the crowd is pretty ornery, and several local news outlets have reported this guy was a more active participant than the video originally let on.

The other part is that, in evaluating his actions, I failed to consider the Fourth Rule. If one were to take a concealed handgun to a protest, and then had to use it, the background would absolutely suck. And this is already a concern I have carrying in, for instance, my local supermarket, the back row of which is easily 100 yards long, maybe further. So I'm considering elevating protest-gun-toting of a handgun from "Not Something I Would Do" to "Pretty Fucking Stupid". I would call it "Batshit Crazy", but I want to reserve that for the camo-wearing rifle-toters.

[trailrunner]

Avoiding such gatherings is wise but you might want to look at more video footage.

The female who was thrown down was one of several protesters who was physically blocking the person in question from leaving. That is what set off the chain of events.

I don't think she was blocking him from leaving. There were several people trying to pull the statue down with a rope. ABQ guy looked like he was trying to get to those people, but the lady was doing a basketball screen to block him. He was not trying to peaceably leave - he was trying to get into the scrum. At least that's how I remember it.

[HCM]

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN23P08W?__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR2YcMZeb1L2CAH_QTDdulreKM9J4_1utLMNjvQoH P_7K_X4uqaNLEeJdaQ

Shooting charge dropped against suspected New Mexico shooter