“and his thug feet would have kept putting distance between him and his victim.”
Nope, that would mean leaving his wife at the mercy of the gunman who was just arguing with her.
That wasn’t his wife. That was his receptacle.
If he really were really worried about her safety, he’d have moved toward her to protect her. Instead, his side step was away from her, as if to find another angle of attack. To me he looked like a hyena circling its its wounded, but still dangerous victim, plotting how he was going to move in for the kill. I think you see it differently. That’s just it. Reasonable people differ in this case.
But even if in his thug mind he had some other intent, his movements were ambiguous. And if someone is pointing a gun at you after you’ve viciously attacked them, you don’t want to give your victim the wrong idea about what’s coming next.
That could produce “reasonable fear” in your victim, arising from the “reasonable doubt” of your ambiguous intentions.
That doesn’t mean it wasn’t bad manners, a little foolish, and sort of gauche to be arguing with the guy’s slut. I agree with that.
I’m actually am disabled. Not really bad, but I use a cane. And when a$$holes like the thug and its slut take a space that I could really use, it burns me up. But I would never confront someone about it. They might turn out to be a thug and his slut, and he may viciously assault me, just like in this case.
So he was a coward as well, turning to leave
‘his woman” to the mercy of a nut with a gun, who, for talking to his woman, should have risked taking a viscous beating from him, like a man.
“His woman”. This is where he went off the tracks. No woman is my woman. I’m married. A guy can argue with my wife, or flirt with my wife. It doesnt give me the right to knock him on his butt and prepare to spill his brains out on the pavement with a head stomp. If he didn’t have a gun, I bet the little lady would have joined in for the head stomping, once she felt safe enough to do it.