George Webb Restaurant doesn't allow staff to be victims.

fishgutzy

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2016
Messages
8,543
Location
Behind Enemy Lines.
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Customer sucker punches a female chef. Other female pulls her pistol to stop him. Doesn't shoot. But that was enough to end it. But for that pistol, this arshat would not have stopped.
If you are ever up that way, stop in at the place.
Front the article.
Milwaukee Police are looking for a man who walked into the kitchen and punched a worker in the face at the George Webb restaurant near South 21st and Mitchell Streets.

The victim, a young mother of three, told TODAY'S TMJ4 she was taken to the hospital and treated for a concussion.
She says the man had been in the restaurant before. This time, he was angry about the service he was given and lost control.

The attack happened around 1 a.m. on Friday, June 29.

It was all caught on surveillance video, which Milwaukee Alderman Bob Donovan made public.
More here:
https://www.tmj4.com/news/local-news/george-webb-waitress-hit-by-customer-suffered-concussion
 
Looked like the lady with the gun may have seen trouble coming. Notice she had her hand in her pocket and tactically backed up while she drew to keep herself clear.

Milwaukee police are "actively seeking a known individual,"

Good...they know who he is. So it's only a matter of time before they get him.
 
[QUOTE="RetiredUSNChief, post: 501528, member: 227"

Good...they know who he is. So it's only a matter of time before they get him.[/QUOTE]

What do you want to bet that the police not only know who he is but they have probably dealt with him before?
 
There was a short time period in the shorter video when she had her gun drawn and he was either still advancing or not retreating. It was a very short time. In retrospect, she might have done the right thing in not shooting, as the threat was neutralized. But he was so close to her, he could have reached her quickly. I believe I would have pulled the trigger on him. That's just me.
 
You know, it's funny how things work out. I don't know if you guys will remember this. About two years ago there was a hospital in the mid-west (I think) that had absolutely no guns on the premises regulation. Some troll came in there and started shooting people. Some doctor pulled a .25 automatic out of his pocket and cancelled the troll's ticket. Since he was a doctor nothing happened to him. However, all employees were strongly warned not emulate the good doctor. The moral of this little parable is that it's better to be dead or wounded than to be politically incorrect.
 
I think she was ready to pull the trigger and the perp narrowly missed getting shot in the face. ;)
Not worth being sued, drug thru the courts, death threats, protests and all the other great things that happen to you when a thug gets capped.
She should have just let him punch her too.
 
Wonder why she didn’t pull?

The one in red looked like she might have been in the way while the guy was still advancing, and by the time she ducked around the armed woman the dude was walking the other way. Still mouthing off it appears, but you can't shoot him for that even if you really, really want to.
 
It looks like to me he takes a full step toward, and one side step, after the weapon is aimed at his head. I still believe I would have pulled the trigger. One major instruction for carrying a pistol is to never draw it without the intention of firing it. I would back that instruction strongly with never let the intended target advance close enough to take the weapon away from you. He was almost that close.

George Webb Restaurant.gif
 
Wow.
Some weirdo comes into her work space and pile drives another woman. That woman probably has a concussion. She then has the ability to determine that this lunatic is no longer a threat, amazing.

Looking a gift horse in the mouth, are we?
 
To shoot or continue to shoot after the perceived threat is perceived to no longer be a threat is at the very least attempted murder.
perceived - That's the variable.
 
perceived - That's the variable.

Very true. Perception is everything. IMHO, still breathing is not threat, so anyone continuing to shoot or begin to in the first place without regard to the situation at hand is at the very least a dangerous person. No better than the assailant.

It seems that some here feel their CHP's or whatever has transformed them into double naught agents. I'm a triple naught agent, so I don't have that license to kill.:D

In this case apparently the woman with the gun didn't feel he was any longer a threat.

Attempted murder, you mean like the thug pile driving the woman in story listed above.

I saw a violent assault that didn't progress thanks to the woman with the gun. She should be congratulated for her handling of the situation.
 
Last edited:
There are big variables at play here and perception is key. The man was indeed still a threat, but she did not realize how much.
The man struck the first woman and was pushing her toward the area the 2nd woman was in. That he was pushing her along shows continuing hostile action along with imminent further harm. When the second woman drew her gun and he continued forward he was still posing a threat. Only, when he start retreating was the threat reduced.
For example, in cases involving Tueller's rule AKA the 21ft. rule, shooting a man with a knife at 10ft. may seem unreasonable. But, if you are able to cite knowledge of Tueller's rule and the danger a man with a knife poses at 10ft., then it becomes justifiable.
So, in this case, not shooting the man may have been a tactical error and justifiable, but she may have thought she had or was gaining control.
 
There are big variables at play here and perception is key. The man was indeed still a threat, but she did not realize how much.
The man struck the first woman and was pushing her toward the area the 2nd woman was in. That he was pushing her along shows continuing hostile action along with imminent further harm. When the second woman drew her gun and he continued forward he was still posing a threat. Only, when he start retreating was the threat reduced.
For example, in cases involving Tueller's rule AKA the 21ft. rule, shooting a man with a knife at 10ft. may seem unreasonable. But, if you are able to cite knowledge of Tueller's rule and the danger a man with a knife poses at 10ft., then it becomes justifiable.
So, in this case, not shooting the man may have been a tactical error and justifiable, but she may have thought she had or was gaining control.

I watched the video. More than once.

1. The woman with the gun was not under attack, at least initially.

2. My perception of what I saw is that the guy backed off and just kept woofin after the woman he hit was out of the picture and he realized the gun totin chick was about to bust a cap in his ass. Problem solved.

Apparently you would have felt better shooting someone because you feel you could have gotten away with it. Guy backing off and running his mouth? Looked to me like she had gained the upper hand. Doing something just because you feel you can get away with it is not always the best solution. In any scenario.
 
I watched the video. More than once.

1. The woman with the gun was not under attack, at least initially.

2. My perception of what I saw is that the guy backed off and just kept woofin after the woman he hit was out of the picture and he realized the gun totin chick was about to bust a cap in his ass. Problem solved.

Apparently you would have felt better shooting someone because you feel you could have gotten away with it. Guy backing off and running his mouth? Looked to me like she had gained the upper hand. Doing something just because you feel you can get away with it is not always the best solution. In any scenario.
Your perception works for you. Great.
Nobody said anything about “getting away” with anything.
The guy was definitely a threat to both women and he is definitely lucky to still be breathing.
 
I did but this I clicked “like”. Thanks.

Your welcome!

Had I not responded to it, I might have "liked" it as well. I do that sometimes. Even when I don't agree with the post.

It's well thought out and written. Have you noticed that I haven't "liked" any of your posts in this thread?

For your edification, here are some examples of what a Piledriver is...

 
Last edited:
I have no doubt that he would have assaulted the women with the handgun if she was not armed.

Back in the day of late night drive up windows my manager would always have a pot full of
boiling water at the ready, and empty one near the fryer machine, one guy tried to pull the
cashier out the window, she was petite, we pulled her back in, he tried to climb in the window,
he got a face full of hot fryer oil.
 
I watched the video several times, and this is what I observed. Thug punches cook knocking her back and to his left. During all this the second woman can be seen in background. Thug starts after cook, at one point it looks as he may have his left hand on her backside. Cook was able to get behind second women. Thug takes step in direction of the women until he realizes that the second woman is armed. Thug does one of the few smart things he’s ever done, he stops, then goes into Ghetto mouth, but backs up, Threat Over. In my mind from that second on there was no reason to use deadly force.

Understand, if you are ever involved in a shooting no matter how justified get ready to be second guessed and questioned for hours on end. Also get ready to write a Big check to the nice attorney who is defending you in the civil suit. Unless you have No other option you really don’t want to shoot someone, as the cost is just way to high in many different ways.
 
Your welcome!

Had I not responded to it, I might have "liked" it as well. I do that sometimes. Even when I don't agree with the post.

It's well thought out and written. Have you noticed that I haven't "liked" any of your posts in this thread?

For your edification, here are some examples of what a Piledriver is...



Haven’t noticed and really don’t care. :D

4D0D180B-0413-40AC-A0FB-628A44F8BF1A.jpeg
 
Why ask? Seems to be multiple experts on that in this very thread. I'm all for taking him off the tax payer's payroll.

It seems to me that the concepts of "justice" and "self-defense" in this thread have been sublimated in favor of "vigilantism" and "lynch mob".
 
I watched the video. More than once.

1. The woman with the gun was not under attack, at least initially.

2. My perception of what I saw is that the guy backed off and just kept woofin after the woman he hit was out of the picture and he realized the gun totin chick was about to bust a cap in his ass. Problem solved.

Apparently you would have felt better shooting someone because you feel you could have gotten away with it. Guy backing off and running his mouth? Looked to me like she had gained the upper hand. Doing something just because you feel you can get away with it is not always the best solution. In any scenario.
You misinterpret my post.
I was pointing out that perception of threat is based on knowledge of the potential threat. Many here feel she was justified in shooting him, because he was a real threat, at least for those few moments he was advancing in the face of a gun. (And that's something we should all consider, jerkwad advances on you, you draw to discourage him, but due to adrenaline, rage or stupidity, he doesn't stop. He's not armed. Now what?)
His advancing at an armed individual could be perceived as intent to engage in deadly conflict. Also, remember that he was effectively continuing an assault on a female he had already attacked and disabled, by pushing her repeatedly toward the back and the other female. Again, implying intent of continuing harm.
You must also factor in the disparity of force between the assailant and the women. The woman with the gun did not shoot for reasons we do not know, fear of killing another, thinking the threat was not yet sufficient or she was in the process of squeezing the trigger, the guy sensed it and turned away just in time to make her stop. We weren't there. On sufficient threat, this is what I was talking about on relation to Tueller's rule. If you do not personally perceive the threat to be sufficient, even if in fact it is, then you are not justified. Many of us here perceive the threat to have been sufficient based on experiences and an understanding interpersonal conflict, would have pulled the trigger and argueably would have been justified in doing so.
 
Back
Top Bottom