Watch for Updates

Originally Posted January 6, 2023

by Robert Baty

Link to full text of Jesse Boyd FaceBook post illustrated below:

Link to Michael Willis FaceBook post of January 6, 2023, the text of which is presented below:

Not sure I’m seeing what Boyd thinks is funny here. This is a pretty straight forward charge. Victim approached the accused to ask him to move his vehicle which the victim claimed was blocking his business’ driveway. In response, the accused threatened or spoke with “fighting words” to challenge the victim. Victim exited his vehicle to continue the confrontation (mistake 1). Accused drew a firearm in response to a perceived threat (mistake 2). Situation momentarily de-escalated, and firearm was handed off to another member of the accused party. Situation then RE-escalated, and a physical altercation ensued (mistake 3). Victim was forced to the ground where the beating continued (mistake 4).

As an outsider – and a self defense “expert” (completely a self assumed title, not something professionally or academically recognized, just based on multiple decades of involvement in training and education and study of self defense techniques and laws) – I see the issue as breaking this down to the basic mistakes.

Mistake 1

The victim exited his vehicle when the accused refused his entirely reasonable request to move a vehicle from blocking his driveway. The method and words or tone of the request is immaterial here. He could have been the biggest asshole on the planet, and still been on the right. It was the responsibility of the accused to de-escalate the encounter at that point by removing his vehicle, which could have been achieved by simply pulling forward by 10 feet. Refusal to do so indicates the accused wished to pursue a confrontation at some level beyond the initial confrontation. The mistake was the victim exiting his vehicle instead of dialing 911 to turn over the issue to local LEO and avoid further confrontation with a clearly hostile force.

Mistake 2

The accused then drew a firearm in response to the victim exiting his vehicle, claiming later that he “feared for his life and the life of those around him”. The problem with this argument is that he didn’t use the firearm at the moment he drew it. To ANY trained individual, drawing or brandishing a weapon without using it is something we instruct our students NEVER to do. NEVER. Why? Because drawing a weapon without using it, especially a weapon as intrinsically deadly as a firearm, without using it, indicates a LESS than terminal fear threat. You are, to use a biological equivalent, beating your chest and making yourself look bigger. It is an attempt to intimidate a threat into withdrawing. Why is this legally problematic? Because any good prosecuting attorney can argue in front of a jury that you weren’t ACTIVELY terrified for life and limb if you were simply threatening and engaged in intimidation displays. If the Accused had drawn his weapon and fired, then the argument would have been easy for a defense attorney to say “see, he was so scared he fired” even if he missed, or missed intentionally – although proving intention would be difficult. I don’t believe any person drawing a weapon to threaten is actively terrified to the point they believe they will die. I have had to draw my weapon less than 5 times in 20 years. Once was because a man was attempting to gain access to my home through my backyard. I placed myself behind the corner of my home, behind cover, firearm was aimed at the ground, and got the burglars attention. He saw me, gun at low ready, prepared to raise the weapon to engage. He ran, obviously. I’ve been in a fast food joint which was being robbed by two teens with knives. I stood behind them outside engagement range, put my hand on my firearm and made sure it was clearly seen, and got their attention. They fled. I’ve been an armed security guard at an apartment complex where my partner and I witnessed a domestic violence incident. The perpetrator tried to run us over with his car as we followed him, removing him from the property. I drew my weapon and aimed it at him as he actively tried to hit us with his vehicle, but didn’t fire as I was behind a large vehicle. The actions of the accused don’t make me believe he feared for his life, especially when he handed the weapon to another member of his group.

Mistake 3

A physical altercation ensued that caused the situation to escalate into a fight. No idea who started it. The accused claims that the victim attacked him as soon as the firearm was handed to another member of his group. If this is true, WHY did the member of the group NOT use the same weapon to end the altercation? Why was the victim not shot if the fear for life and limb was so high and a physical attack was in progress? Why was the victim not stopped by a simple “hey stop, or I’m going to shoot you!”? This indicates, again, that fear for life and limb was NOT present.

Mistake 4

Once the victim, who the accused claims was the instigator, was forced to the ground, and no longer a threat, the assault by the accused and his followers continued. At this point, with the victim on the ground, and, as the medical record indicates, likely in a fetal position attempting to protect himself, and was no longer a threat in any form, yet the beating continued. In the early 1990’s in Los Angeles, 4 police officers beat the ever living hell out of a black man named Rodney King. The initial confrontation and conflict may have been legitimate, and was partly determined to be within department policy at the time, but the problem was that the beating continued AFTER the threat was rendered ended based on the perpetrator being on the ground, unable to fight or continue the confrontation. When beatings continue AFTER the threat is ended with the victim or threat being grounded that indicates the motivation for the physical altercation was not about self-presevation, but based on an emotional and violent response and seeking to punish the individual. It is NOT within the authority of private individuals to “punish” another. That is the purview of the Law. Had the Accused ceased the physical confrontation the moment the victim was grounded and rendered unable to resist, his argument of self-defense MAY have had some merit, even with all the other extenuating conditions and events. But the fact is the victim and his group continued to assault the victim when he had been rendered unable to be a threat indicates they were seeking to punish him. This does NOT fall inside the common behavior, or the legal framework, of defense. We are taught, regularly, during firearms and self defense courses you “engage the threat until the threat is eliminated, and no more past that”. Why? Because continuing to engage a threat after it has been neutralized moves you from self-defense to violent assault and battery. Doesn’t matter how much you felt threatened initially, if you continue to engage after the threat is over, YOU are in the wrong.

I ALMOST wish I was a prosecuting attorney and could try this case. It would be a relatively easy argument to make.

Links to related articles on this site:

The 3 professional martial arts defendants are Jesse Boyd, Eric Trent, and Bethany Boyd. The 4th defendant is Bethany’s boyfriend, Carter Phillips, who had the second gun used in the incident. His martial arts status is unknown.

Update January 7, 2023

Update January 8, 2022

Jesse and his people appear to have really been busy doing “opposition research”. I wonder when Jesse will open up and discuss what he has found out about me!

Come out, Jesse.

Come out.

That beating his grandmother gave him probably gets worse every time Jesse tells that story, and the injuries he and his people inflicted on Brad Terrell on November 12, 2022 get better and better with Jesse’s every telling of the tale.

Update January 9, 2023

Jesse Boyd was finally forced to take notice of me, but refuses to mention me by name.


The Butcher Shop returns to the story at:

Update January 10, 2023

Jesse Boyd’s 90-year old grandmother, Marjorie C. Green, stops by to emote on one of my FaceBook pages at:

Update January 12, 2023

Jesse Boyd is part of a small church, one of its pastors according to reports, which regularly meets on Sunday’s and broadcasts the sermon presentation. I think the location of the meeting place can now be identified. No reason why it should be secret. See link and 4 screenshots below.

Update January 15, 2023

Montana1st(Fake)News returns to the story!



Michael Willis on Jesse Boyd! — No Comments

Leave a Reply

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>