Lol we are giving this guy a lot of attention that he don't deserve. I wouldn't pull out a middle finger on this chump . If he scares you to pull out a weapon then it's no wonder your on a 2a forum . The only thing that looks threatening is probably his breath . There's nothing a good stiff jab followed by a right hook / right upper cut can't handle in this situation. It's a pit bull affect. He'll bark but you must not fear his bite . If you do your already bitten.
But what if the guy in the video wasn't skilled in striking? Or had a hidden disability, like heart disease, asthma, or back problems that precluded him from engaging in such physical endeavors?
IMHO I think there are valid points (generally speaking)on both sides of this discussion and that each one trying to persuade the others (and hence the readers of this forum) should try to do so with facts and case law instead of vague references to super secret training or unstated "professional" experiences. There may be differing opinions on what may, or may not, constitute legitimate use of deadly force against an unarmed individual and the goal should be to educate yourself on different circumstances so that you are prepared in the event you have to make those decisions in the heat of a very stressful situation. The trier of facts, aided by the clarity of 20/20 hindsight, be it a jury or a judge, will view each circumstance differently and use a reasonable man standard to weigh the evidence and determine whether or not the use of deadly force was appropriate. That being said, based on the training I have had and the research I have done, I would say that in this particular case there wasn't a need to pull out a gun on the obnoxious punk...yet. But I can also see how it could have escalated to that point or that another individual, especially someone unfamiliar with the "local culture," or who was smaller or less capable of some hand-to-hand defense, might have evaluated the situation differently and legitimately felt compelled to use a firearm.
I agree that if you can leave, do so. Ego and machismo will not look good in retrospect while trying to defend your actions in court. I can also see the possibility that as you tried to leave, precisely because you wanted to avoid further confrontation and escalation, that Mr. We Hit Women and Dogs All The Time, may have become even more infuriated and tried to stop you. Recall that he told the guy to sit down. He could have interpreted trying to leave as a blatant disregard of his "command" and responded by escalating the situation.
I disagree that you cannot legally justify hitting someone preemptively based on your perceived risk of danger. As Justice Holms, in Brown v. United States said, "Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife." If you are cornered by someone like this, or can't leave because doing so would place others, such as your wife or girlfriend, in jeopardy, and he is increasingly encroaching on your "space" and you feel his attack may escalate soon, there is nothing that says you cannot strike first. Continuing your attack after the threat was eliminated would probably be deemed unwarranted, but I doubt several quick and continuous blows to disable the attacker would be seen as unjustified. The same principle can be applied to the use of a firearm. You need not wait until your attacker has pulled his gun, or his knife, or even hit you, depending on the circumstances, before you present your firearm. You also don't have to actually shoot once your gun "clears leather" either. If producing your firearm causes the assailant to stop his attack and backs away, shooting him would probably be seen as unjustified.
If you had other options, like pepper spray, and tried to use it but ultimately had to use your gun, it would probably be viewed in a positive light.
The bottom line is, IMHO, is that these discussions become more of a "I'm right and you're not" rather than an opportunity to learn from others. Even in the clarity of hindsight most self defense cases are shades of grey, not a clear cut, black and white case. To claim that it is always wrong to strike preemptively or that is never appropriate to shoot an unarmed person clearly shows either how little you know about the realities of self defense, or that your ego demands you always be correct. Regardless, it sheds little light on what is a complex, often nuanced situations.
It would be nice, as I said earlier, if positions and arguments could be based more on fact and case law, and that if one chooses to invoke the "in my experience" argument rather than in the aforementioned manner, that at the very least that experience was clearly stated so that the reader could evaluate the validity of said opinion themselves.
By no means an exhaustive or complete treatise on self defense, but an interesting read.....Oh, and the standard disclaimer: IANAL, this is not legal advice and represents my opinions only....
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/Self-Defense-Cases.htm