It started when a male Lyft passenger began saying things that made her uncomfortable while she was taking him to Meijer.

It started when the driver reached for her gun, but the man saw what she was doing and reached for it too. The driver and the man fought, and the gun went off once, but no one got hit.

Cynthia James is the public information officer for Kettering Police. She said, “She (the driver) claimed the male made some sort of statement to her, saying that he didn’t want to hurt her and that he just wanted to be given a ride.”

The man got ahold of her gun, which was a Glock 17, and fled the scene when they got to the Meijer. The Kettering police attempted to use a K9 to track and locate the suspect, but he had already fled the scene.

He had on a green hoodie, blue jeans, and a dark-colored cap with a short grayish beard.

“It sounds like it could have been a lot worse if she didn’t have a means to protect herself,” James said.

Despite company policy prohibiting ride-share drivers from carrying firearms while working, there has been a noticeable increase in incidents over the past year where ride-share drivers have had to defend themselves. There was a case in September where a police officer pulled up behind the vehicle as the passenger was attempting to rob the ride-share driver at gunpoint. The entire incident was caught on dash cam.

Lyft Driver Firearm Policy

“Lyft has a strict “No Weapons” policy for all of its properties. This includes Lyft Hubs and service centers.

Our “No Weapons” policy applies when you are doing business as a representative of Lyft, which includes times that you are driving for Lyft, as well as times that you are visiting a Lyft Hub.

This means that even in places where it is legal to carry a weapon, we ask that you do not carry a weapon on any Lyft property.

We approach this from a community perspective. It’s hard to know what someone else is or isn’t comfortable with. The mere presence of a weapon might make another community member distressed and fear for his or her own personal safety.

At a minimum, a “weapon” includes any form of firearm. There are many items that could be considered weapons besides firearms, such as handguns, stun guns, explosives, knives, sling shots and tasers. Lyft reserves sole judgment on what else may constitute a “weapon.”  If you have any questions about whether various items could be considered a “weapon” under this policy, please contact Lyft Support before bringing any questionable items onto Lyft property.”

It may be time for Lyft and Uber to reconsider their policies.

On November 25, around 1 in the morning, Yaqoub Nagi, 17, walked behind the counter of a Citgo gas station in Detroit. Nagi was holding something with his hands together and pointing like he had a gun when the 28-year-old clerk approached him.

The clerk fired several shots, hitting Nagi in the upper body multiple times. When the police arrived, they found Nagi dead from the gunshot wounds behind the counter.

A press release said, “It has been determined that the clerk acted in lawful self-defense when he fatally shot Mr. Nagi.”

The Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office said, “Under Michigan law, an individual who is not engaged in committing a crime may use deadly force against another anywhere he/she has a legal right to be with no duty to retreat. The individual must honestly and reasonably believe that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself, or to another individual.”

Michigan 780.972 Use of deadly force by an individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.

Sec. 2.

(1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:

(a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

(b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.

(2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.

In a twist of events, the man who defended himself as he was entering his home in Los Angeles a couple of weeks ago has had his concealed carry license “revoked.” Fox News reports that the sheriff’s department contacted him yesterday and said it was because he yelled at the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officers when they were investigating the incident three days later.

Two men had jumped a fence and pointed a gun at Vince Ricci when he was entering his house, and a gunfight broke out. Ricci fired eight shots at the man who attacked him, and now that they synced both video views up, it appears his attacker was firing at him as he was running away. His five-month-old daughter and nanny were inside the home during the event.

In the video, Ricci says, “My situation is unique because it happened at my front door, all on camera. But this happens time and time again all over the country … People sweep it under the rug because it doesn’t behoove their political agenda. The fact is, evil will always exist,”

Some additional facts have come out since the shooting:

• Someone had broken into his home in June.
• A few months before that, someone broke his car into
• Criminals driving a Dodge Charger have been targeting other homes in the area.
• Someone broke into his neighbor’s house the night before his attack.

That would seem to be more than enough reason to justify carrying a gun for protection. Getting a CCW license in Los Angeles takes months and isn’t a simple process. It is called a Concealed Carry Weapon (CCW) in California, and you even have to prove you have “good moral character.”

‘After successfully defending my home and my family and my five-month-old child, California has now decided to suspend my Second Amendment [rights].’

The NRA said, “His decisive actions to protect his wife and daughter embody the core principles that NRA members fight for every day,” said NRA spokesperson Billy McLaughlin. “It’s reprehensible that California is shredding his Second Amendment rights after he defended his family. Gov. [Gavin] Newsom and [Los Angeles County District Attorney George] Gascon’s pro-criminal policies have transformed Los Angeles and the wider state into what resembles a war zone. The NRA stands with Vince and every responsible gun owner in California, firmly committed to defending their rights to protect their families and communities.”

They took his right to carry away, but the criminals who attacked him are still roaming the streets. Thankfully, he has video evidence to show he acted in self-defense.

Police in Shelby, North Carolina, said on November 6th that 33-year-old Unterio M. Jolly got into an argument with another man on the street.

The two guys eventually went in different directions, but according to Capt. Seth Treadway, Jolly found the other man and confronted him with a handgun about half an hour later.

Jolly allegedly then shot the man he had been arguing with in the face. A woman with a concealed carry permit stepped in to help him and shot his attacker five times.

“Then they kind of go their separate ways, and about half an hour after, Unterio shows up with a gun and shoots (the man) in the face and the shoulder,” Capt. Seth Treadway said. “Right after he does that… a concerned citizen shoots back, trying to protect (the man) and hits Jolly about five times. She shoots him five times.”

The attacker suffered non-life-threatening injuries, and Jolly’s gunshot wound left him in critical condition.

Jolly is being charged with felony assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, inflicting serious injury, possession of a firearm by a felon, and assault.

The Shelby police said, “We will consult with the District Attorney’s Office later in the day to see if those charges need to stay the same,” and continued, “I do not expect any charges on the person that returned fire.”

Ability: Can They Do It?

The first thing in deciding if using deadly force is justified for self-defense is the other person’s ability to cause you harm. Ability refers to the other person’s capability to cause you serious bodily injury or death. The person’s ability involves different factors, like their physical strength and whether they have a weapon. That weapon could be anything from a baseball bat to a gun.

Are there multiple attackers? If there are, this brings in a term called “disparity of force.” Five against one isn’t fair odds, which tips the scale towards the attackers.

Opportunity: Is the Threat Imminent?

Okay, let’s say the individual has the ability to harm you. Now, you must decide if they have the opportunity and if the threat is imminent.

The second factor to consider when deciding if you can use deadly force is whether they have the opportunity to carry out the threat. Opportunity is the immediate and proximate circumstances in which the threat unfolds. It involves assessing whether the assailant can harm you imminently.

If the attacker has a knife but has a few vehicles in the way, you need to decide if the other guy can cause immediate harm. If the guy has a gun pointed at you and is a few vehicles away, that’s different, and the opportunity factor might be there.

Understanding the concept of opportunity helps you gauge the immediacy of the threat and whether using deadly force is the only workable option to prevent harm. Sometimes, the best choice is to get out of there while you can and live to fight another day.

However, if they are charging at you with a raised weapon, that’s a different story.

Intent: Do They Mean Harm?

The third and final thing to consider is the assailant’s intent. Intent relates to the other person’s purpose or state of mind about hurting you. Are they showing clear signs they intend to cause you harm? There must be a “reasonable belief” that the assailant wants to cause you serious bodily harm or death to justify using deadly force.

Deciding intent can be tricky because it involves assessing the other person’s actions, words, and demeanor. It comes down to reading someone’s body language and verbal cues.

A person who explicitly threatens you with harm or shows aggressive behavior may give you strong evidence of intent. However, remember that you need to evaluate intent objectively based on the information available to them. Some people just want to act like a bad *ss and cause trouble, like in the case of this YouTuber who recently got shot.

What if someone is armed with a holstered gun and talking to you without making any aggressive moves? In that case, he probably isn’t out to harm you.

Once that person starts yelling threats, waving around a gun or knife, or displaying signs of aggression, it’s more likely they intend to harm you.

Wrap-Up – Deadly Force for Self-Defense

Remember, the rules and laws governing the use of deadly force can vary from place to place. You need to familiarize yourself with the specific laws in your area and seek advice from legal experts.

Deciding if you can use deadly force for self-protection involves determining if ability, opportunity, and intent exist. Understanding these three factors can help you make informed decisions in high-stress situations and, hopefully, keep you and those around you safe.

ALL of these three things combined are what you base your decision on. You have to understand the intricacies of these components so you can make informed decisions if sh*t ever hits the fan.

Following the guidelines about the legal use of deadly force is vital for your safety and to keep yourself out of jail because you made a bad decision.

Always remember information in an article like this is not legal advice. Please consult an attorney for specific legal guidance.

The case gained widespread attention not because of a shooting but because the YouTuber in question was a prankster with a large following.

Currently, the YouTuber has about 50k fans and makes $2k to $3k monthly from his videos, which he calls pranks or “comedy content.”

In his “pranks,” he pretends to puke on Uber drivers and stalks unsuspecting shoppers through department stores. Deputies from the sheriff’s office said they knew Cook and had gotten calls about his other stunts.

What happened

Alan Colie, 31, a DoorDash driver, was picking up an order in a food court of a Virginia mall. Tanner Cook, a 21-year-old YouTuber, leaps in front of Colie’s and shoves a phone in his face. Cook’s phone is constantly playing “Hey dips**t, quit thinking about my twinkle” via a Google Translate app. Two people were following the driver, and a third was recording it.

Colie’s defense attorney, Adam Pouilliard, said that Colie was concerned about the threats that delivery drivers confront when interacting with the public and that Colie has a concealed carry license. Colie is still in jail and is scheduled to appear in court on October 19.

Charges

They arrested the driver in April and charged him with aggravated malicious wounding, felony use of a firearm, and discharging a handgun within a building.

The jury had to determine that Colie acted maliciously to find him guilty of aggravated malicious wounding and malicious discharge of a firearm.

If the jury decided Colie was reacting to something that would make a reasonable person afraid or angry, then there was no malice according to the law.

Prosecution

Prosecutor Eden Holmes says the facts do not support a self-defense claim. According to the law, Colie must have a reasonable fear of bodily harm and use no more force than is necessary. According to the prosecutor, the YouTuber’s prank was bizarre but not threatening.

The prosecutor said the contact between the two men lasted only approximately 20 seconds. The prosecutor tried to cast doubt on his testimony through her line of questioning.

“In those 20 seconds, you felt the only option was to take out your gun?” Holmes asked.

“Those were my thoughts,” Colie replied.

The defense of disparity of force

During Thursday’s final arguments, the driver’s lawyer said that his client felt threatened by the 6-foot-5 YouTuber during the confrontation, which was set up to provoke a reaction and get more people to watch the YouTuber’s videos.

His attorney claims that the shooting in the food court was self-defense, and after hearing about other delivery workers being robbed, he carried a gun to protect himself.

It showed the incident between the driver and the YouTuber to the jury. In the video, Cook goes up to Colie as he picks up a food order. The YouTuber is considerably bigger than Colie, holding his mobile phone within a few inches of the delivery driver’s face. The phone repeatedly plays the message “Hey dipsh*t, quit thinking about my twinkle” using a Google Translate app.

Cook didn’t stop and, along with the second guy, continued moving towards Colie even though he was trying to get away. Colie repeatedly told them to “stop” and said he would call the police as he shoved the phone back. Colie tries to knock the phone out of Cook’s hand before pulling out a gun and shooting Cook in the lower left chest.

Colie said he felt confused by the phrase Cook was playing and told the jury the two looked “really cold and angry.”

“In my mind, I registered that he was a threat to me, and he was going to harm me,” Colie told the jury. “I saw his left hand down in his left pocket. I didn’t know if he was concealing a weapon. For my safety, I took out the gun from my right pocket and shot him in the stomach. At that time, I was fearful that my life was in danger.”

His attorneys asked why he didn’t try to fight Cook or run away. Colie explained he felt surprised and scared, and he didn’t think he could escape or fight back against Cook. Additionally, he wasn’t certain if Cook was armed.

The defense attorney had Brian O’Donnell, a threat assessment and de-escalation expert, testify. He explained how the size of an individual and how close they are, along with no way to escape, someone could be considered a threat.

He talked about how someone’s reasoning skills and problem-solving capabilities are affected by stress.

Using O’Donnell’s testimony, the defense tried to show that the defendant’s stress affected his perceptions and his “ability to see alternative courses of action in the moment.”

The defense attorney said the YouTuber “is trying to confuse people to post videos. He’s not worried that he’s scaring people. He keeps doing this.”

Deliberation and verdict

After deliberating for about three hours during the trial, the jury sent a note to the judge. The jury’s message said it is “divided in terms of whether the defendant acted in self-defense.”

The jury found Alan Colie not guilty of aggravated malicious wounding or the use of a firearm for aggravated malicious wounding. However, they did find him guilty of firing a gun inside the mall. They set aside the guilty verdict until a hearing to discuss it on October 19.

The YouTuber plans to continue making his prank videos.

In the mass casualty incident (MCI) post, paraphrasing here, his stance was that the only option should be running. Hiding makes you more of a target. He even used Uvalde as an example of hiding being pointless because that classroom full of children was stuck there with no avenue of escape.

According to his post, fighting is pointless, as you stand no chance, even if you have years of training in hand-to-hand combat. He even said that with his 14 years of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu (BJJ), at best, it would be a toss-up.

In his post about arming teachers, he uses the example of friendly fire incidents in the military, specifically the Army. He argues that expecting teachers to target an attacker without harming innocent people is unrealistic, given that professional soldiers can mistakenly shoot at the wrong person.

Can Arming Teachers Be Effective

In my opinion, both arguments are wrong. Just because someone does not have the training of others does not prove they cannot respond correctly and accurately to overcome violence against them.

First, we should all train to avoid violence if possible. Be situationally aware. Be vigilant. But be prepared.

However, sometimes we can’t avoid it. In that case, hiding may be the best option. Not always, but it can be. A couple of exceptions do not make it the rule.

Just because soldiers in chaotic situations can mistakenly fire upon their fellow soldiers doesn’t mean we should prevent teachers from being armed. Children are our greatest treasures. We should do whatever we can to protect them. However, if we allow teachers to carry firearms, we must ensure they receive proper training.

Teachers Should Have Firearms Training If they Want It

A LOT OF TRAINING! As much as possible, and then even more. I strenuously encourage everyone to get training in my Minnesota permit to carry courses. I don’t care if they have been shooting for decades or are brand new to firearms; we can all get better. And we should strive to get better.

It is ridiculous and callous to discourage someone from protecting themselves or someone else just because they have messed up. Everyone has the God-given right to self-defense.

We shouldn’t train to overcome any and all threats. Whether that is by avoidance, running, hiding, or fighting. We should always train to overcome.

By Jeff Mitchum

Jeff is the owner and lead instructor at Tactical Yeti Defense and Training LLC in Shakopee, MN.

Officers arrived at the scene and found two masked men dead from gunshot wounds.

The business owner told the police that he had just returned from the bank when he was hit with something in the back of the head. He turned around to find two individuals wearing masks and gloves standing in front of him, so he fired his gun in self-defense.

When the owner’s employee came out of the store and saw what was happening, he also shot at the robbery suspects. A third suspect got away in a black Lincoln Navigator.

“One of the employees of the business heard the commotion, came out, and saw what was taking place,” Assistant Chief Chandra Hatcher said. “The employee also began discharging a firearm.”

According to investigators, the shooting was the outcome of a jugging attempt.

“Jugging” is a term often used to describe a specific type of criminal activity that involves observing individuals who have withdrawn money from a bank, ATM, or financial institution and then robbing them of the cash.

Asst Chief Chandra Hatcher Media Briefing on Fatal Shooting of Two Robbery Suspects at 1703 S Sgt Macario Garcia https://t.co/rZOkLFWhEy

— Houston Police (@houstonpolice) August 16, 2023

Houston police Asst. Chief Chandra Hatcher said, “I want to appeal to anyone who is watching. Please consider your actions. Please consider your decisions because your choices have consequences. Unfortunately, the suspects here, I would believe, have loved ones who will now be grieving their loss.” “Choices have consequences. We don’t ever advocate for violence or crime, but our citizens have the right to defend themselves. Choices have consequences. Crime does not always pay.”

“His business has been robbed in the past, so this is a traumatic experience for anyone who is involved in something like this,” Hatcher said.

Once again, this stresses the importance of situational awareness. Pay attention to what is happening around you, and stay off your cell phone when walking. Have your keys ready before you walk to your car so you can immediately unlock your doors.

Use your head and keep your eyes open because they are crucial when it comes to self-defense.

CWBChicago said Monday that a car approached a 33-year-old man. Three armed individuals got out of their vehicle, and the victim fled. With three-to-one odds, it was probably his best bet.

“The gunmen began shooting at the victim, but he escaped injury. His car was recovered at the scene, albeit with a flat tire. An individual familiar with the situation told CWBChicago that the victim is a concealed carry holder. He had his weapon at the time of the incident but decided to run rather than stop and try to return fire at two gunmen.”

Regarding our story of a concealed carry holder who was shot at during a possible carjacking attempt last night.

He had his firearm but decided it was wiser to run away than engage two active shooters. https://t.co/imA2qTkPN6

— CWBChicago (@CWBChicago) August 9, 2023

Attackers seriously injured another man in a gunfight when gunmen approached him in Chicago’s Lawndale area on Sunday night.

The 31-year-old victim was heading home from work when two men, one of whom was armed with a handgun, approached him on the sidewalk at around 10:00 p.m.

According to authorities, the victim, who is a concealed carry license (CCL) holder, also pulled out a gun, and they exchanged shots.

The victim suffered gunshot wounds to the stomach and buttocks as the suspect fled. When the police arrived, they took him to Mount Sinai Hospital, where he was in critical condition. Police recovered a gun, but no one was arrested.

Chicago police: Concealed-carry license holder critically wounded in West Side shootout https://t.co/8GbPOEKwtH Any day in Chicago could be one of violence where your life is in danger from the amount of uncivilized & uncouth criminal trash elements that lurk everywhere.?

— Robert L. Smoot (@qyou185) August 7, 2023

The list of concealed carry license (CCL) holders using a firearm in self-defense this year in Chicago continues to climb.

Immediately after the incident, the prosecuting attorney charged the mother and her kid.

Later came a complete turnaround from prosecutors, so you have to wonder if they jumped the gun (No pun intended). I would like to see ALL of the videos, read the text message, and hear the statements from witnesses.

-What did the text say when she told her kid to bring her the gun from the car?

-Where are the full videos, not cheery-picked clips?

-Why was there a struggle over the gun where the mom tried to take it from the kid, and where’s that video?

-Why did the prosecutors file the charges so soon when they had plenty of videos and then make a total about-face?

-Did they rush to judgment, or has public pressure caused them to back off?

-Why did they flee the scene after the shooting?

-How did the prosecutor justify the kid chasing someone and continuing to shoot? As much as we may all think the thug deserved it, that’s not the law.

-Can we all go chasing someone down for payback after this? If so, the crime rate will drop.

I’m 100% for the right to defend yourself, but this story has too many missing pieces and conflicting statements.

The guy hitting her was a scumbag and paid the price. FAFO! The lady egging it on should be charged. Let’s make an example of her for group participation.

The optics of this case don’t add up. I am glad the mother and her son are OK physically, but they will still have to deal with the emotional toll. Here is the full story of what happened at the time they arrested the mother and her son, and that might be all we ever find out. The City of Chicago and Cook County State’s Attorney have not released any further details.