BTW, ASL, this was my actual question which you misleadingly edited down to a sentence fragment to make it seem like I was asking about the pregnant white woman in the video:
You have not actually answered this question.
In any of those cases, if you’re safely in your car, call the police. Start recording and let the people blocking you in know that you want no part of this conversation and just want to leave. If they continue to harangue you, let them know you’re calling 911, then do so.
Things not to do: Attempt to move the car while people are blocking your way. Leave the car if you feel you’re in danger. Wave a gun at the people blocking your way.
I’ve read here over and over that you shouldn’t never point a gun at someone you don’t plan on killing. Since it’s clear she didn’t plan on killing those people, she should never have pulled that gun.
At 1:23, it appears that the van has backed up enough that it could easily drive forward to to the driver’s left and leave the parking lot. It’s hard to be sure, though.
Either way, that was a criminal use of a firearm. If the others were to be charged with something for their role in the affair (striking the car window, for instance), that’s fine, but the most serious crime by far was Mrs. Wuestenberg’s brandishing.
If someone baits you into doing something wrong that you wouldn’t have done otherwise, you’re still responsible for your actions. Everyone involved here was in the wrong, but only one threatened anyone with a firearm.
No. Brandishing a weapon when it was clearly not justified to do so was their fault. We’ve been through this.
Where is that in the video? I watched it three times now and didn’t see that.
I think you’re just supposed to assume that that’s what an “angry black person” would do 
@ 1m22s in the video, if you freeze/pause, you see a person approaching the rear of the vehicle from the left side of the frame.
Furthermore, it stand to reason that since the couple was in their vehicle, windows up, backing out, they would have no compelling reason to then stop and get out of their car again.
Does not justify them threatening anyone with a gun. But let’s not just all pretend that what we see happen in the video didn’t happen.
I’m not seeing banging on the window. But I’m not sure of any explanation for how the older woman winds up behind the car, unless she is going there to block the egress.
Especially since the videographer (I think that’s the daughter?) starts walking in the other direction.
I answered the one part of the question that I considered relevant. The rest of it was just whataboutism.
You and octopus both apparently seem to think that pulling a gun on someone is on the same level as other things depicted in that video. It is not.
At 1:22 you can see a woman behind the van, to camera left. The van backs up, and at 1:24 and 1:25 there are two banging sounds. They sound to me like someone slapping the van, but since it’s only audio, it’s hard to be sure.
Instead of driving away (on rewatch, I am certain that the van could have just turned driver left and departed), the van stopped and Mrs. Wuestenberg exited it, brandishing her firearm.
Exactly. Threatening with a firearm is an extreme escalation of the situation.
When you live in constant fear of the other, of losing your freedom, of having someone threaten your property, “second amendment remedies” become very appealing. That kind of deep emotional insecurity can’t be reasoned with.
Which ISTM if you are prone to freaking out when things are not going smoothly and you’re not being allowed to exit saving face, maybe you should not arm yourself.
Damned right! Some black person tries to grab more power than they deserve, and it’s time to start pulling guns on them like the folks in the OP did. White people don’t have to submit to blacks taking more than their fair share; they can shoot them. The black people were basically asking for it anyway.
To be clear, for posterity, I’m accusing SlackerInc of taking the position above. I personally think it’s disgusting.
So does this count as DGU or not?
There’s no standard definition of defensive gun use, different studies and surveys use different ones.
Given that this was unlawful and unnecessary, only studies trying to inflate the count of DGUs have any business counting it.
I’ve read here over and over that you shouldn’t never point a gun at someone you don’t plan on killing. Since it’s clear she didn’t plan on killing those people, she should never have pulled that gun
I’ve yet to see an answer to this from all the gun people who repeatedly said you should never point a weapon at something you don’t intend to kill.
I’d’d argue that if you truly fear for your life, and a person is blocking egress, then you should remain in the car, call 911, and move it in whatever direction gets you away from the threat. Honk the horn loudly and move slowly enough for people to get out of the way. This is a good sign that you were just trying to leave without hurting anybody.
When you get out of the vehicle, you prove that you’re not really scared, you’re trying to prove a point. Likewise, if you gun the engine or intentionally drive into people when there are clear ways back or around, you don’t get credit for trying to avoid or de-escalate the situation.
Crafter_Man spoke up, at least:
In other words, there’s somebody near the rear of the car, and all the rest of what SlackerInc posted:
is a guess, and should not have been given as a definite statement.
There’s a noise; we don’t know what the noise was. There’s a person near the back of the car; we don’t know whether she was intending to try to block it.
To me, it stands to reason that if somebody’s actually beating on your car in a public parking lot, there’s a compelling reason to stay in there, where you have the protection of the car. I don’t see anything remotely reasonable about getting back out of the car, especially if they actually were concerned for their safety.
So I don’t agree that it’s possible to conclude from their getting back out of the car that somebody was hitting it; or even that somebody was blocking it.
Maybe that did happen; but, if it did, the evidence is not in the video.