My blogbuddy Murphy’s Law recently had an . . . interesting . . . sort of encounter in New Orleans, where he and his two canine companions are settling down after moving there from West Virginia. He’s written about it on his blog. Go read, and learn from his reactions and response.
Well done, sir!
Good job, as far as it goes.
NOLA is a cool place (to leave.) It's a place where we've already seen what happens when the excrement is transmitted via the rotary oscillator.
You can dodge one LaDarious and Precious, but 1,000? No way.
My only regret (so far) is not moving farther into the sticks.
I'm not sure what WV is like, but I can't imagine why anyone would voluntarily move to NOLA…
The comments to the post are instructive, the ones that appear to assume that engaging with a firearm is the preferred response. Unless you have some important reason to stand your ground, it's almost always better to escape the confrontation if you can do so safely. Also, if you ever have to shoot someone under ambiguous circumstances, pray the prosecutor doesn't connect you with a history of "Shoot 'em!" online bloviation.
A key detail the advocates of "shoot the moke" are overlooking, he'd spent a few hours at a pub with friends.
Not sure about LA, but most states frown on CCW when drinking.
Given his quick well thought out response and razor sharp situational awareness he was obviously not drunk, but had a shooting been required it would have come up. Probably wouldn't have mattered, but one less complication in such a matter is always desired.
Also put me in mind of the Larry Niven short story The Deadlier Weapon.
To add to Uncle Lar's comment (above), while I won't get into suggested responses (Murphy explains that pretty well his own self), I will offer that, should one exercise one's 2nd Amendment rights in the course of a self defense scenario, I'll guarantee among the first 5 questions from the Responding Authorities will be "have you been drinking?"
Some jurisdictions prohibit combining alcohol consumption and carrying; common sense dictates doing so on one's own hook. There is not a cop on the planet who has not heard "but ossifer, I've only had two beers" and knows it's a lie. Even if it's the truth, and the drink number was only a verificable "one," there will always be the question of judgment impairment; it may not go anywhere, but the question will exist nonetheless, and in a state that does not prohibit civil suits for justifiable self defense actions it opens the door for all sorts of legal shenanigans. "No, officer, I have not consumed any alcohol within the past 8 hours and I am willing to submit to a blood test to prove it" pretty much closes the issue. (Side note: it's always a blood test, never a breathalyzer, no matter who owns it, runs it or where it's conducted. Never submit to breathalyzer, always demand a blood test; state laws vary on the issue, so learn yours.)
Aw, thanks Peter…So when you and the missus gonna come back this way and visit?