The incident occurred Monday in South Los Angeles as kids were heading home from school, and authorities have not given out any information except that it was a homicide.

The teenager was walking away when a guy sucker-punched him, and the group piled on as soon as he fell.

Yesterday, multiple kids jumped a teenager in Los Angeles, and the kid who got attacked fatally shot one of the attackers.

The incident occurred Monday in South Los Angeles as kids were heading home from school, and authorities have not given out any information except that it… pic.twitter.com/jMvErb52QS

— LetsTalkDefensiveGunUse (@LetsTalkDGU) April 16, 2024

You can hear three shots, and if you look at individual frames, you can see that the kid who got attacked had a gun.

If this was an adult and they did not initiate the attack, it would most likely be justified, resulting in charges not being filed.

Since this kid was under 18 and illegally had a firearm, where do they go from here?

One-on-one fights are no longer the norm for settling disputes. This is where “disparity of force” comes into the equation, and it MIGHT be justification for using deadly force to stop the attack. I used the word might because every scenario is unique.

Unconfirmed information puts the deceased and the shooter under 18. Remember, initial reports are sometimes inaccurate.

In April 2022, Santa Rosa County Sheriff Bob Johnson, during a press conference, said, “If somebody’s breaking into your house, you’re more than welcome to shoot them in Santa Rosa County, and we prefer that you do.”

This was after 32-year-old Brandon Harris, with 17 previous arrests, went on a string of home invasions in Florida.

An unidentified homeowner had shot at Harris during one of the break-ins, but the sheriff didn’t know who it was and offered the person a firearm safety class.

“Whoever that was, you’re not in trouble. Come see us. We have a gun safety class we put on every other Saturday, and if you take that, you’ll shoot a lot better, and hopefully you’ll save taxpayers’ money.”

Knowing when you can and can’t use your firearm in self-defense is important, and it’s not always legal if someone is breaking into your home. In most jurisdictions, you have to be in fear for your life or grave bodily harm. This article talks about the factors involved that justify the use of deadly force, which are ability, opportunity, and intent.

There was a lot less gun violence when they taught gun safety in schools, and you could have your rifle in the back window rack of your truck.

Maybe proper firearm training for the masses is the way to go.

Here are the five incidents that I know of.

• 1/22/2024    Teen shot by a customer during an attempted restaurant robbery
• 1/26/2024   In Chicago Ridge, offenders got into a gunfight with 2 CCL holders they were following
• 1/28/2024  CCL holder calls 911 and says someone is threatening him with a knife
• 1/28/2024: CCL holder gets into a shootout with men who stole his SUV
• 1/30/2024: This morning, men attempted to rob a CCL holder, and they lost

How many officer-involved shootings have occurred in the past week? Zero that I can find.

I’m meeting with a Chicago business owner tomorrow to view security camera footage that shows the police arriving just as the offenders take off.

They got away and committed multiple robberies on the same night, including another one of his stores.

Given that last year saw a significant number of shootings in self-defense in major cities, the question is whether this pattern will continue in 2024.

Now, for me, as a certified firearms and CCW instructor in California, I am all for people using their Second Amendment right to bear arms and protect themselves. However, this is a prime example of what NOT to do as a concealed carry permit holder.

While this video appears to be of a man protecting his family from armed robbers, let’s pick it apart from a California legal perspective.

• As a CCW permit holder, your goal is to stop the threat. It is NOT to chase it down and keep shooting at what WAS the threat. The way it appears in this video, he stopped the threat when he threw a cup of hot tea at the robbers, and they ran off.
• To avoid any serious legal, financial, emotional, familial, or societal ramifications, good CCW training includes knowing how to make a decision other than shooting.

The way I see it in this video, the robbers were running away. The homeowner could’ve run into his house, locked the door, and instructed his wife or nanny to call 911 while remaining vigilant in the house until the police arrived.

A prosecutor could potentially see the shots fired not as a self-defense move, but rather as four negligent discharges. Once the threat ended and the robbers ran away, the homeowner could’ve made a different decision other than chasing after them and shooting.

What if he had hit a neighbor or car driving by?

On the flip side, the homeowner’s response could meet the requirements of a reasonable and rational fear of great bodily harm or death to him and his immediate family (per CA PC 198). Also, AOJ (ability, opportunity, and jeopardy) appears to have been satisfied.

In a confrontation that happened last year in Antioch, California, the district attorney Diana Becton said: “In the eyes of the law, Mr. Williams’ actions ceased to be self-defense when Mr. Williams pursued Mr. Jackson and the other suspect with a firearm — and continued to pursue Mr. Jackson after he shot him.”

“The legal distinction is clear: when your property and life are being threatened, an individual is legally justified in using deadly force in self-defense,” Becton said. “However, once the threat of harm has dissipated, the victim of a property crime cannot then use deadly force to reclaim stolen property.”

California Castle Doctrine

You can legally use force to protect your home. However, in this case, where the attacker targeted him outside of his home, I lean toward the threat ending when he threw the tea at his assailant.

There are many complexities of the California Castle Doctrine. PC 198.5 says, “Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.”

The robbers never entered the house, so the Castle Doctrine technically does not apply if the intruder is not inside or trying to enter the residence.

The homeowner’s attorney could argue the latter part of “trying to enter the residence” in his defense if he needs one.

California Stand Your Ground Law

The stand-your-ground law is a defense he might use for someone who uses force inside or outside the home. However, this law has its own nuances and specific parameters.

CAL CRIM 505, “A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of (death/great bodily injury) has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating.”

The danger of death or great bodily injury probably passed when the attackers ran off.

As a firearms instructor, I understand his reaction to protect his family. Still, I also see the homeowner’s negligence and lack of trigger control. Shooting all over the place runs the risk of hitting an innocent bystander.

I am certainly not giving the intruders a break here. They still approached the homeowner at gunpoint. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in court, especially considering that this occurred in the very gun-unfriendly State of California and the more liberal County of Los Angeles.

A man with a concealed carry license (CCL) fired a shot into the air Sunday evening in a suburb north of Chicago during a confrontation with pro-Palestinian protestors.

In the video, the 39-year-old male driver exits his car and starts chasing a woman who tried to pull an Israeli flag off his passenger side door. People in the crowd for the pro-Palestinian rally go after the man. A melee begins, and while multiple people are on top of the guy, he pulls out a gun and fires a shot into the air.

People ran away, and immediately, armed police surrounded him. He put his gun on the ground and his hands in the air. The police put him in handcuffs and quickly took him away.

Yesterday, the Cook County State’s Attorney said, “After reviewing the evidence, which includes surveillance video and witness statements, we have determined the individual … acted in self-defense upon being surrounded by a crowd and attacked by some of those individuals.”

Lincolnwood police said, “This Sunday evening, a support Israel event took place in the 3400 block of Touhy Avenue in Skokie. Approximately 200 protesters showed up in support of the Palestinian population in the Middle East. The Skokie Police Department initially took preventative measures by having a Law Enforcement mutual aid plan on standby prior to the event occurring. Due to several disturbances escalating outside the event, additional police resources were called to respond to the area to help control the crowd and maintain order.

During the gathering, a subject was confronted by numerous individuals in the Lincolnwood Town Center mall across the street from the event, at which time the subject pulled a firearm and discharged the weapon in the air. No injuries occurred, and the subject was immediately taken into custody by Lincolnwood Police.

Lincolnwood Police presented the case to the Felony Review Unit of the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office for prosecution. After reviewing the case, the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office declined to prosecute the subject. The 39-year-old male subject resides in Chicago and is a valid concealed carry license (CCL) holder.” The subject has been released from police custody. The subject’s name is being withheld due to no criminal charges being filed in this incident.”

Here is a video of the shooting from a second angle.

I have not seen a single outlet describe what happened correctly. Some outlets called the guy an “Israeli terrorist,” and others said a “crazed Zionist attempts to shoot up protesters.”

One local “organization” said, “He pulled his firearm and began firing shots in the direction of a pro-Palestine rally.”

This could have gone a few different ways for the concealed carry holder. Although he ended up on the ground while people attacked him, many states say you cannot use deadly force to protect yourself if you were the “initial” aggressor.

Could a different prosecutor have decided he was the initial aggressor since he got out of his car and chased the lady? Fortunately for him, this prosecutor considered his actions self-defense.

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 today’s world, discussions surrounding firearms and their use are often sensitive and complex. Among various firearm-related issues, brandishing a firearm always gets attention because of its potential to escalate confrontations.

Definition of Brandishing a Gun

Brandishing refers to the act of displaying a weapon in a manner that can be perceived as threatening or aggressive. This display can involve showing, waving, or pointing a weapon, and it is done in a way that may cause fear or intimidation to others.

The intention behind this action is to convey a sense of power or control over others, often during a dispute or altercation. Brandishing a firearm can occur in various settings, such as during road rage incidents, heated arguments, or conflicts in public places.

Understanding the Legal Consequences of Brandishing

You need to understand when drawing a firearm is appropriate. Brandishing a gun is illegal in many jurisdictions and can lead to severe legal consequences. Laws and penalties vary by jurisdiction, but common charges may include fines, imprisonment, and losing the right to possess a gun in the future.

Federal law defines brandishing as “For purposes of this subsection, the term “brandish” means, with respect to a firearm, to display all or part of the firearm, or otherwise make the presence of the firearm known to another person, in order to intimidate that person, regardless of whether the firearm is directly visible to that person.”

Not all jurisdictions call it brandishing. The state of Flordia says, “Improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms.—If any person having or carrying any dirk, sword, sword cane, firearm, electric weapon or device, or other weapon shall, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit the same in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense.”

Illinois has no “brandishing” law, but the offense can fall under the Illinois Firearm Concealed Carry Act (FCCA).  “Aggravated unlawful use of a weapon” in Illinois involves deliberately displaying a weapon intending to intimidate or threaten someone.

This offense is governed by 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6: “The person possessing the weapon was engaged in the commission or attempted commission of a misdemeanor involving the use or threat of violence against the person or property of another.”

The town of Frankfort, IL, does use the word.

137.04 BRANDISHING OR CONCEALING DANGEROUS WEAPONS.
(A) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry in a threatening or menacing manner,

Why is brandishing a Gun Dangerous?

Brandishing a gun can escalate conflicts, leading to potentially life-threatening situations. When a gun or knife is displayed in a confrontational manner, it can trigger fear and panic in other people, making it difficult to de-escalate the situation peacefully. Additionally, brandishing can also result in an accidental discharge, causing harm to oneself or innocent bystanders.

De-Escalation

It is essential to understand that there are legal and non-threatening ways to address conflicts so you can keep yourself safe. Conflict resolution techniques, communication skills, and de-escalation strategies can prove invaluable in diffusing tense situations.

If you ever feel threatened or in a potentially dangerous situation, prioritize safety and de-escalation. If possible, keep your head screwed on straight, remove yourself from the encounter, and contact the authorities to handle the matter appropriately.

Get training to understand the laws and guidelines surrounding using your firearm in self-defense situations. Keep your gun secure and within your control at all times.

Understanding firearm laws and responsible firearm use are essential components of gun ownership.

While it’s essential to protect yourself, pulling a weapon isn’t always the best course of action. Using your firearm is a last resort, not a first line of defense.

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.