Oh yes, violent people can always be reasoned with if you have enough "experience". That makes total sense. And yeah, pointing a gun at a teenage attacker is officially attempted murder. Great experience in law there too.
I love the self-righteous prognostications of those who don't know what they're talking about. A firearm aimed at men - their ages notwithstanding - who are beating you is lawful self-defense. It's called "disparity of force" and if two punks are beating you and get you down on the ground they can kick you to death, and you are legally justified in defending yourself before that happens.
People assume that "teen-agers" are just slightly older children until they've worked in the Juvenile Justice system and seen some of the full grown teen agers who could & would snap your neck as easily as any full grown, adult. In other words, not all teen agers are build like David Hogg.
I see. So the fellow with the gun was charged with attempted murder. Should be a slam-dunk case then, considering the video and all the witnesses, eh?
When I owned my pub learned early on any violence in my Pub would send paying customers somewhere else. Any pub with a reputation for violence tends to be avoided by customers that want a conflict free place for entertainment where one with with a bad reputation tends to attract customers that see conflict as potential entertainment. In the latter case, you tend to lose money and increase your potential liabilities...few make owners much revenue. I learned early on techniques to de escalate potential conflict before violence erupted with numerous methods (one some might think strange was most of my door people were women, but that’s a different story). Despite my efforts, not everything could be stopped with early intervention (alcohol, you know), not everyone responds to de escalation methods and teens are worse at responding to such methods than drunks, particularly when there are more than one and they are feeding off one another to ‘prove’ something where a victim is the means to that end. As for any ‘man’ being able to control 2 teens, sounds good in print. As for the fellow pulling a gun, I would point out, 1) doing so stopped the attack. 2) he inflicted no harm on the teens with an unarmed defense, something he’d likely had to do to achieve stopping the attack and something he’d been vilified for if he did. 3) despite all the witnesses, no one assisted in his defence something I am sure helped his decision...he was effectively alone 4) had they got him down, incapacitated, they could have taken his gun and killed him and potentially others then or later 5) he didn’t shoot anyone 6) considering, after he pulled the gun, he could have potentially become the aggressor since they retreated subject to legal difficulty, but instead, restrained from using deadly force (what is generally prescribed by the laws in most states)... he acted responsibly and within the law. 7) if anyone should be vilified beside the teens, it is those that spectated instead of helping to stop a potentially deadly assault and preventing the death of teens should the fellow have not been as restrained in his actions as he was. Now I know GCAs will try to argue minutia to find a means to vilify the fellow to support their agendas, but when you get down to it they would be more placated if the fellow was killed or grievously injured as a sacrifice to their dogma than use the mere display of an evil gun (the greater crime by their standards than avoiding death) by the fellow to save his life.
