Quick Draw Law Ep. 3: A Rapid-Fire Legal Analysis by Criminal Defense Attorney Andy Marcantel
Featuring Attorney Andy Marcantel
June 6, 2025
When it comes to self-defense, the line between using ordinary force and deadly force depends on many critical factors: the nature of the threat, its imminence, proportionality, and the aggressor’s intent, size, or weapon. Criminal defense attorneys Andrew Marcantel examines real-life incidents to explore where that line is drawn, and whether the actions taken were justified.
KEY CASES:
- Case 1: Signal Hill, California - Altercation Over a Receipt
- Case 2: Milwaukee, Wisconsin – Restaurant Kitchen Assault and Armed Defense
- Case 3: TikTok Prank Gone Wrong – Pouring Water Imitating Gasoline
- Case 4: Houston, Texas – Pregnant Woman Uses Firearm to Prevent Armed Robbery
- Case 5: Miami Beach, Florida – Car Wash Employee Shoots Armed Group
- Case 6: Russia – Shopkeeper Defends Against Hammer-Wielding Robber
Case 1: Signal Hill, California - Altercation Over a Receipt and Escalation to Deadly Force
At a grocery store, a middle-aged man argues with an older man over a receipt. The middle-aged man knocks off the older man’s hat, sparking a fight. The older man pulls a knife, so the middle-aged man draws a gun and orders him to leave.
Question: Is the middle-aged man justified in drawing his gun? Why or why not?
A minor fight quickly escalated to a deadly standoff with two weapons. The older man could face aggravated assault for drawing a knife, but might argue self-defense due to the younger man’s size. The middle-aged man, who reportedly started it by knocking off the older man’s hat, may lose his self-defense claim. Since both escalated the conflict, both could face serious charges.
“The moral of the story here is don’t be a hothead and don’t be the initial physical aggressor.”
Case 2: Milwaukee, Wisconsin – Restaurant Kitchen Assault and Armed Defense
A male customer, upset over a denied refund for delayed food, walks in the kitchen and punched a waitress. In response, her coworker drew a firearm to stop further harm.
Question: Is the waitress’s coworker justified in drawing her firearm?
The coworker was legally justified in drawing her firearm, as the victim was near a hot grill where a fall could cause serious injury. Due to the attacker’s strength, the coworker had no realistic way to protect the victim physically. Deadly force was therefore imminent and necessary. The attacker was later charged with assault.
“There are plenty of times where it is completely legally justified to bring a gun to a fist fight. All that matters is that you need to be facing deadly physical force.”
Case 3: TikTok Prank Gone Wrong – Pouring Water Imitating Gasoline
A TikTok prankster pours water on cars and lights a small fire nearby, pretending it’s gasoline to provoke reactions. The prank turns dangerous when one car owner instantly pulls a gun, aiming at the prankster. The TikToker admits, “It’s a prank.” The car owner’s cold response cuts through the tension: “It better be…”
Question: Is the car owner justified in pulling out his gun?
The car owner was likely justified in using a firearm because the prankster’s actions created a reasonable belief of arson, a serious threat. Under the “reasonable mistake of fact” doctrine, the perceived danger justified self-defense, even though it was water. The owner’s later verbal threat is legally questionable since deadly force can’t protect property alone, but with the gun lowered and only a verbal threat, charges are unlikely.
“If you’re a prankster and you want to become the next big thing by pranking random people on the street, you should know that if they reasonably believe that you are putting them in danger of an imminent risk of deadly physical force, they could potentially shoot you and be completely legally justified.”
Case 4: Houston, Texas – Pregnant Woman Uses Firearm to Prevent Armed Robbery
A man is pistol-whipped by an armed robber while standing next to his pregnant wife. Reacting instantly, she draws her concealed firearm and shoots, wounding the attacker. The sudden gunfire sends the other robbers fleeing the scene.
Question: Was the wife justified in using her firearm?
Yes, the wife was justified in using her firearm, as the attacker had already used deadly force. In fact, she showed restraint by waiting until the robber approached her husband before firing, though he was visibly armed. Most jurisdictions support the use of deadly force in such incidents to protect oneself, others, and, in this case, her husband, unborn child, and bystanders.
“The fact that he was recklessly waving the gun around at them in the first place, frankly, is all you need. She could have shot him dead right then and there. She didn’t. She waited tactically until he came over.”
Case 5: Miami Beach, Florida – Car Wash Employee Shoots Armed Group in Self-Defense
Three masked men approached a car wash. One was shot and fled, followed by the other two. The employee who fired said they tried to rob him, a claim backed by witnesses. Despite this, the employee, who has a felony record, was charged with second-degree murder.
Question: Was the employee justified in opening fire?
This case is complicated by the lack of video, leaving prosecutors to rely on eyewitnesses and forensics, limiting full analysis. We highlight two points: first, although the employee’s felony record may not permit him to be in possession of a gun, self-defense can apply if there’s a genuine threat, though weapons charges remain possible. Second, the three masked men fleeing suggests consciousness of guilt, implying they believed they were guilty.
“Your status as a legal carrier has nothing to do whatsoever with the legal analysis for self-defense… you have to believe that you are in imminent risk of deadly physical force in order to use deadly physical force.”
Case 6: Russia – Shopkeeper Defends Against Hammer-Wielding Robber
A shopkeeper is confronted by an armed robber holding a hammer, the shopkeeper hides out and proceeds to use pepper spray on the robber to neutralize the situation. He then uses physical force, assisted by a third party who uses a chair to subdue the attacker.
Question: Was the third party’s use of a chair to help the shopkeeper necessary?
A hammer is a deadly weapon, so the shopkeeper could justifiably use equal deadly force in self-defense. However, using pepper spray, which is non-lethal, is fully justified. The third party is also justified in subduing the robber with a chair since the robber still had the hammer and was continuing the threat despite being sprayed. Claims of excessive force would only apply if the shopkeeper continued to harm the robber after disarming him.
“If you needed to lock up a would be robber in a storeroom or something like that while the officers were on their way, you actually are going to have the legal right to do that in the United States.”
Avoid being the aggressor, don’t use deadly force unless absolutely necessary, and educate yourself on self-defense laws. Most importantly, align yourself with a trusted legal team, like The Attorneys For Freedom Law Firm.
We offer The Attorneys On Retainer Program which is committed to fighting for your self-defense rights. Please call 866-404-5112 or email us.
