This broad daylight gunfight is over as quickly as it starts. The video of the incident via WINK News is only a few seconds long and the events unfold so fast you may want to watch it a couple times:
This is a quickly escalating confrontation as one man — a convicted felon named Kevin Bruzos — walks outside his employer’s building and points a gun at people in the parking lot.
Almost as soon as that gun comes out, a concealed carry permit holder, whose name hasn’t been released. responds to stop the threat. His timing and marksmanship are on point as he hits the aggressor center mass without harming any bystanders.
courtesy Winknews.com
Bruzos will live to tell the tale; he’s currently recuperating in the hospital in stable condition. He has previously been convicted of third-degree battery, drug possession and criminal mischief.
Stay ready, sheepdogs.
That was fast thinking (and acting).
Good shoot. Nicely done. Hope the fallout doesn’t get too expensive or stressful for the CCW holder.
“Hope the fallout doesn’t get too expensive or stressful for the CCW holder.”
Legal fallout not likely from the State of Florida, they are pretty good on armed self-defense.
Personal vengeance from the guy shot (or his gang association) is another issue, however…
Couldn’t possibly have happened. There are laws against felons having guns and there are laws against pointing weapons at people.
And everyone knows criminals are really law abiding citizens who are victims of circumstance.
He was a good boy just about to turn his life around. He just needed to get some clothes for school (or whatever other work of fiction his friends and family will have to say about him).
Wanker.
And this must be fake news. Shannon, Mike and Sugardaddy say that DGUs never happen and you’ll just shoot your eye out.
Almost looks like a Brazilian video except people actually seem surprised that the shooting happened.
News guy quote
“Bruzos IS a convicted felon and shouldn’t have had a gun”
Do tell moron!
and this is why we always tell you that EVEN MORE gun control laws will not work in the end…
Heh, and people with revoked driver’s licenses never drive.
And those with restraining order always stay away from the person they are supposed to protect.
And bad guys never bring guns in to ‘gun free zones’ where they’ve definitely never shot anyone.
So on… 🙂
/sarc
Be a man, not a dog of any kind. Dogs exist to serve man.
Yeah, but “sheepman” isn’t very catchy.
Aaaand cue the second-guessing hot-mess takes(*) among the permanently aghast, in 3, 2, 1… They’ll be wrong about at least these:
— You don’t have to wait until the bullet leaves their barrel, let alone actually hits someone, to assume both intent, and effect. Neither is simply carrying a gun a threat. Pointing a gun at someone, ready to fire … that’s assault. Waving it around like you’re gonna point … that’s called “brandishing” and we don’t like that either.
— “Proportional” response doesn’t mean “proportional” to what they were able to do. It means proportional to what they (credibly, immanently) threatened to do. Indeed, the point of defending yourself is for things to come out unproportional, in your favor.
— Intent matters. The guy looking to shoot people up because he can, or had a bad hair day, we object to. The guy reluctantly shooting a killer to stop the killing, that’s another. First resort vs. last resort matters.
— You, also have a right to live. Just because someone wants you to die, you are not required to lay down and die for their convenience. Their “reason” doesn’t matter. Your life is your own to spend. Particular to DGUs, even if killing you makes someone’s crime easier, you also are entitled to your own opinion on the whole getting dead part.
All the anti’s steaming hot-mess takes on DGUs bottom out on the *opposite* of at least one of these premises. I think the game is to call them on it. It’s always about convincing the persuadable middle. If you’ve reasoned your way to your opinion, you can take someone else along that same path. Nobody I’ve talked with has a useful response to any of these premises. “So, you’re saying someone being threatened with murder has no right to their own life … because someone else wants to kill them?” Unaligned folks tend to think further. “If everybody owns their own life. And we can’t seem to keep BGs from doing violence to get their way. Disarming responsible people is … why again?”
(*) I really think, given the cool kid language, “hot takes” should be known as “hot-mess takes. Aren’t they all? I only have shame that it took me til now to think of this.
“Indeed, the point of defending yourself is for things to come out unproportional, in your favor.”
That there is quite possibly the best comment on the Intertubez so far this year!
“You, also have a right to live. Just because someone wants you to die, you are not required to lay down and die for their convenience. Their “reason” doesn’t matter.”
Yet that is exactly what slave states expect you to do. Lay down and die. Bite the pillow. Just accept it and let POs come to file a report over your corpse, or in the hospital after you’ve been raped (assuming you’re still alive), etc.
His priors sound like he be following in the footsteps of Conor McGregor.
You have to watch the video to the end when they replay the shoot. You see the assailant drop his weapon after being shot and the good guy grab it and get it away (bad form shouldn’t have touched it) but what does our bad guy throw onto the porch in the very end. Did he have another magazine in his hand?
Comments are closed.