Fight on State Street in Santa Barbara on Monday

Fight on State Street in Santa Barbara on October 7, 2024 (video by an edhat reader)

On Monday evening, at the corner of Ortega and State Streets, a couple was approached by a man with a knife behind his back. Words were exchanged and the man with the knife charged the two people.

The video shows a struggle in the street between the two men. The man with the knife is seen kicking the other man in the face before running away.

Video was captured around 11:00 p.m. by a man from San Diego who happened to be in the area.  The man with the knife confronted the man shooting the video, who then ran to a safe distance and phoned police.

It is unknown if the police responded as the reporting party did not remain on the scene.

Fight on State Street in Santa Barbara on October 7, 2024 (video by an edhat reader)

blazer

Written by blazer

Blazer is a longtime radio DJ providing morning traffic reports on 92.9 KJEE and writes stories of interest for edhat.

What do you think?

Comments

7 Comments deleted by Administrator

Leave a Review or Comment

82 Comments

    • In the comment your are referring to, I stated homicide by “RIFLE” fire was 447.
      You can look up the original comment in the deleted comments.
      STATS: In 2023, rifles were used in 2.6% of homicides in the United States
      So……17,927 gun homicides in 2023………2.6% of 17927 is approximately 466.
      The key word you missed was “rifle”.
      The webpage referenced in your comment doesn’t have detailed information.
      So, did I lie or did you misread my comment?

          • ANON – that’s what I’ve been asking here all along – what was your overall point?

            Why cite only rifles deaths to compare to knife deaths? Why can’t you answer that question?

            No, technically you did not “lie,” but by citing only deaths from a certain type of gun, and not one that is usually used in homicides, as a an attempt to say knives are more dangerous than guns, is just disingenuous.

            I can no longer do this with you until you can answer my question. You’re simply making NO sense.

            • I already explained why I included rifle deaths in my original comment. The point remains: you are 3.8 times more likely to be killed by a knife than by a rifle. Most people are unaware of that statistic.

              “According to surveys, a significant portion of the population overestimates the number of deaths caused by rifles, often believing that rifle-related fatalities are much higher than the actual data indicates.”

              And why would I state the well-known fact that the number of gun deaths is greater than the number of knife deaths?

              Also, most Americans are unaware that suicides represent such a high percentage of gun deaths. Perhaps that’s why you included that information in your original comment.

              But here you go again: you write in this latest comment, “as an attempt to say knives are more dangerous than GUNS, is just disingenuous.”
              You did it again. You just can’t stop.
              I NEVER implied that. You intentionally (or mistakenly) inferred that I suggested knife deaths were greater than gun deaths.

              Again, another red herring. You changed my comment from rifles to guns. You say I’m lying, and then proceed to tell an untruth.
              I did say knives are more dangerous than rifles.
              So, why did you respond to my original comment by calling my data points “absolutely outrageous lies”?

                • I assumed you would have been able to infer the reason for including rifle deaths from the first two paragraphs in the previous comment. So, let me rephrase it.
                  You ask “what was your overall point?”
                  My point was……to inform people that knife deaths are greater than rifles death, because “a significant portion of the population overestimates the number of deaths caused by rifles”. And now, the 6 people that read the comment section, also know.
                  Oh, and here’s another stat, more people are killed by personal weapons such as hands, fist, feet, and etc. than with a rifle.
                  “You can’t handle the truth.” -Jack Torrance

                  • LOL ok well, using your logic, guess what other gun deaths are lower than knife deaths? Black powder muskets.

                    Musket deaths are less than knife deaths. SO WHAT. Same with rifle deaths, SO WHAT?

                    So again, what was your point of only using ONE type of gun to compare to all types of knives?

                    You know what? Never mind. You won’t answer the question and you’re clearly irrational.

                    What was your handle again? I Know Nothing or something? I saw it in the deleted comments back when you started this absurdity.

        • Look at the original comment. I stated…..
          1,500 people are killed by knife in the United States each year.(stats)
          In 2021, 447 people were done so by rifles in the United States.(stats)
          I didn’t cite only rifle deaths.
          I’ll add one more.
          42000 killed by auto accidents.
          This happened on the street and the attacker had a knife.
          Point, you are more likely to be x’ed out by a knife than a rifle.
          You state “that’s absolutely bullsheet.”, and then bring up stats that don’t dispute nor compliment what I said, “such as 20,958 deaths (and that is homicides ONLY) is not the same as 447”. What? Who said anything about the number of gun murders?
          So again, where was the lie?

          • ANON says “In 2021, 447 people were done so by rifles in the United States.(stats)
            I didn’t cite only rifle deaths.”

            Dude, read those words to yourself out loud and then get back to us. My God…..

            And again, WHY did you only cite “rifle” deaths? Your whole agenda is to downplay gun deaths and you clearly cherry picked some stats about “rifles” only. Why?

            “Who said anything about the number of gun murders?” – YOU DID! YOU are the one who brought up RIFLE DEATHS.

            This has to be a joke, right? Where’s the hidden camera? There’s no way you can possibly be serious, right? Right?

              • ANON – in terms of gun deaths, you cited ONLY rifle deaths. Period. Stop. Done.

                Why?

                This one is hilarious…

                ” yet, I specifically mentioned RIFLE deaths, not GUN deaths.” right after you said
                “All rifles are guns, but not all guns are rifles.”

                RIFLES ARE GUNS. ALL OF THEM.

                We’re done. You lose.

                • I never mention ALL GUN DEATH in the ORIGINAL POST.
                  I cited RIFLE deaths compared to KNIFE deaths.
                  You state..”RIFLES ARE GUNS. ALL OF THEM.” (all of them is redundant) That’s like saying, dogs are animals. All of them. Are there any dogs that are not animals? Again, the term “all of them” is redundant.
                  Basic logic. “all dogs are animals, but not all animals are dogs”
                  All rifles are guns, but not all guns are rifles. (no mention of death)
                  All deaths by a rifle is a gun death, but not all gun deaths are done with a rifle.
                  Your response was a red herring because you redirected the original comment of deaths caused by knives and rifles to ALL GUN-related deaths. You originally brought up ALL GUN deaths in response to my first, now deleted post , not me.
                  (parts from a earlier post)

            • I cited RIFLE deaths compared to KNIFE deaths.
              All rifles are guns, but not all guns are rifles.
              Your response was a red herring because you redirected the conversation from deaths caused by knives and rifles to all gun-related deaths. You brought up all GUN deaths, not me.

              You asked, “Who said anything about the number of gun murders?” – YOU did! You’re the one who brought up rifle deaths”….and, yet, I specifically mentioned RIFLE deaths, not GUN deaths.

              You also asked, “And again, WHY did you only cite ‘rifle’ deaths? Your whole agenda is to downplay gun deaths, and you clearly cherry-picked stats about ‘rifles’ only. Why?”

              Again, you’re conflating guns with rifles. There was no mention of GUN deaths in the previous comments for me to “downplay.” You’re arguing with your own red herring.

              I already explained why I included rifle deaths in my original comment. The point remains: you are 3.8 times more likely to be killed by a knife than by a rifle. So, be afraid an aggressive person armed with a knife.

            • DALGORF – I honestly can’t tell if he’s just trolling or actually thinks he’s somehow in the right here.

              It’s like saying, one certain type of gun has less deaths than knives per year, therefore knives are more dangerous than guns.

              1st Grader Logic.

              • Your “1st Grader Logic” in response to the data is flawed.
                You state… “It’s like saying, one certain type of gun has less deaths than knives per year, therefore knives are more dangerous than guns.” …….Let’s break that down.
                “one certain type of gun has less deaths than knives” TRUE
                “knives are more dangerous (deaths) than guns” NOT TRUE
                Using the word therefore is assuming that a partial truth about one subset can be applied universally to a larger set, which leads to a false conclusion.
                If you said, one certain type of gun (rifle) has less deaths than knives per year, therefore knives are more dangerous than that one certain type of gun, then your statement would be true.

                Simply put. Knives are more dangerous (cause more death) than RIFLES.
                Now on to your next red herring.

              • At first I thought they were intentionally playing word games, but now I think it may be a “spectrum” issue. As you said, citing only rifle deaths is irrelevant and pointless. Their comeback is that they cited knife deaths too. Is that an intentional utter misunderstanding or an organic one? In any case it is one, making their arguments a series of bizarre strawmen. Their latest is “The point remains: you are 3.8 times more likely to be killed by a knife than by a rifle. So, be afraid an aggressive person armed with a knife.” — they might as well have said “1+1 is 2, so be afraid of an aggressive person with a knife” — the consequent stands on its own and has nothing to do with the antecedent–you could be thousands of times more likely to be killed by a rifle than by a knife and you still should be afraid an aggressive person with a knife–or any other deadly weapon. The comparison to rifles is completely irrelevant, and seems to only serve the purpose of minimizing the danger of firearms.

              • When INTELLIGENT people are complaining about “only rifles”, they OBVIOUSLY are referring to the exclusion of other types of firearms, not claiming you didn’t also mention knifes, autos, or whatever. Duh. No one other than you–for whatever bizarre reasons you have–care only about rifles to the exclusion of other kinds of firearms. We have a gun violence epidemic and a society flooded with guns and a gun fondling culture. Rifles are a small fraction of that but they’re of great concern because of their role in school shootings and other mass violence. If you want to compare knifes to rifles to the exclusion of other firearms, then you should be comparing them in the context of school shootings/knifings and mass shootings/knifings. How many people were killed by knifes in Las Vegas or at Pulse or Uvalde or Sandy Hook etc?

                • When someone uses emotions to push an argument instead of logic or facts, it’s called an appeal to emotion. This is an informal fallacy, meaning the problem is with the content of the argument.
                  Your problem is with the CONTENT.
                  “How many people were killed by knifes(sic) in Las Vegas or at Pulse or Uvalde or Sandy Hook etc?’
                  Who was the president in 1952?
                  Neither question nor answer to the these questions has any bearing on the truth that knife Ds are greater rifle Ds.

                  • BTW,

                    “Your problem is with the CONTENT.”

                    is an *ad hominem* fallacy. You don’t know my views on any content other than those I have explicitly stated, and what those views are and what “problems” I may have are not germane.

                    And “This is an informal fallacy, meaning the problem is with the content of the argument” is false; that something is an informal fallacy (which it wasn’t; you’ve identified no fallacious statement and simply declaring my argument to be an appeal to emotion doesn’t make it one) does not mean that “the problem” is with the content. The problem with informal fallacies is that they’re fallacies–the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises. Speculating on the motivations or mental processes of the person uttering the fallacy is no part of logic.

                  • “When someone uses emotions to push an argument instead of logic or facts, it’s called an appeal to emotion. ”

                    I did not utilize an appeal to emotion. That’s a self-serving lie.

                    The fact is that you’re the one who can’t follow a line of reasoning, as when you treat my question about knife deaths at Las Vegas etc. as irrelevant–it wasn’t irrelevant to my point and my argument, which you simply ignored.

                    The irony is that, even if everything you have written is factually true, you have convinced no one and have only made enemies. Emotions are real and you are triggering emotional reactions. Why? Because people see through you and your disingenuous arguments and they don’t like people to try to gaslight them.

                    • If I wrote that the Dodge Challenger has a higher driver death rate than a Chevrolet Sonic (which is true), and someone immediately quipped, “For God’s sake, folks, can we quit with the absolutely outrageous lies?” because my data didn’t include all cars involved in number of driver deaths, would the data be untrue?
                      Then, another commentator might respond by saying, “The comparison between Challengers and Sonics is completely irrelevant,” or perhaps they would ask, “What about the 1990 Interstate 75 fog disaster that killed 12 people? They weren’t driving Chevy Sonics.” After attacking me for excluding all cars, I’d be called a liar and disingenuous. Later, some might admit I was telling the truth but claim I made enemies because I triggered emotional reactions by mentioning driver death data, or by not including all car models in the data.
                      And that’s actually what did happen when I said KD’s are greater than RD’s – and yet not one person argued against that data, but attacked the why, what, and how the data was introduced.
                      You say, “…even if everything you have written is factually true, you have convinced no one (convinced them of what? – It’s just data.) and have only made enemies.”
                      So, let’s see if I have this right. If I cite truthful data, some may view me as an enemy simply because I chose to do so.
                      Got it.
                      As Ricky says, “Keep your friends close, but get your enemy a toaster.”

                  • I can’t believe you were willing to lump all cars into one stat, but not all guns. Where’s your stat about “death by 1994 Ford Taurus”, or “death by tow-truck”?

                    I’m being facetious, just in case you couldn’t tell.

                    Your ‘rifles vs knives’ comparison is really pointless, even if it’s factually correct. It it obviously an attempt to bring up the oft-discussed topic of gun violence, but adds exactly nothing meaningful to it.

                    • “According to surveys, a significant portion of the population overestimates the number of deaths caused by rifles, often believing that rifle-related fatalities are much higher than the actual data indicates.”
                      Now a handful of people reading the comments are no longer apart of that group.
                      Knowledge may not be meaningful to you, but others may be interested to know that their preconceived ideas were incorrect.

      • It’s a challenge for lazy cops who don’t want to walk a few blocks. They never effectively patrolled State in their cars. It was always gridlock. The only cops that ever made a difference when I used to hang out downtown as a kid were the ones who were on foot, walking State and venturing into the nooks and crannies and alleys where people were getting high, minors were drinking and other shenanigans were happening. You can’t see that from a car on the street.

        • Alex, Sac-
          Sac, wrong. They have patrolled state street for decades with no problems (in cars and motorcycles). They have limited officers on bikes and yes they have ebikes. I have 3 friends that are ebike patrol cops, 1 who is a motorcycle cop, 1 detective, and 1 auto detective. They have a certain amount of officers working in shifts. They don’t have the resources and man power to be everywhere all of the time. Plus many of you wanted them defunded which happened. For several years they were told to not patrol. Told to sit and wait for calls. This is what you wanted and you got it. In my area, it’s not the best (other side of the 101 near the water front). There is only 1 bike cop, and 1 car that comes out. There are dozens of messed up mentally ill people, addicts and career homeless people. They don’t even go to the park any more. Why? The one guy on the ebike that does that area, Jay, is also on Swat, and several other teams. They are stretched thin. Their motor cops stop working at 4pm most days. SO no, they don’t have cops available to cruise up and down State street every day, every night. If they did, downtown wouldn’t be the sh*t show it is. Yes, opening up the road would remove 90% of the BS and problems downtown.

        • lazy cops who don’t want to walk a few blocks? lol i’m cracking up laughing. every cop i know in town is fit. this has nothing to do with “lazy cops” perhaps if you understood how their job works, how assignments work, how routes and daily ops work……
          seems you and Alex have better policing ideas/concepts than our entire police department. dang….we should just fire them all and have you and Alex installed as Chief and Captain and you guys can show all of us how policing works, since you clearly know better.

          • KNEIN – you clearly didn’t really read my comment and perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. The point is, cops have successfully patrolled State by foot (and bike) and I think they can see and respond to crimes much better than by driving up and down in their cruisers. It’s pure common sense. They’ve done it in the past, they can keep doing it.

            Main point: Cars not being on State St. is not the cause of all our problems. Give it a rest.

        • BASIC says ““Lazy cops”? Go yell defund them and then expect them to be perfect, everywhere at all times? Garbage. ”

          Someone doesn’t know how to read. I didn’t call cops lazy, I said patrolling the street, like they used to do, would only be “a challenge for lazy cops.” You need help with understanding this language. Strike 1.

          Never once have I said “defund the police,” either. Strike 2.

          I don’t “expect them to be perfect,” either. I only said that they can efficiently do their job by walking the beat as they used to. What is a cop in a car supposed to do when they’re stuck in the State St traffic? Yell, “hey stop that!”? Dude, I grew up hanging out downtown and the cops used to be on top of it, walking and biking. They can still do that.

          Strike 3 looking at a meatball. Ha!

      • Maybe someone could figure out how to take a bicycle and put an electric motor and battery on it or something like that. Then the police could patrol all over the place outside of their cars where they can actually see and hear what’s going on.

      • “police chief gordon said its a challenge to patrol state street. Cops need there vehicles and perhaps the street should be open to vehicles.”

        She may have said the first part but the second sentence is your creation.

  1. “Lazy cops”? Go yell defund them and then expect them to be perfect, everywhere at all times? Garbage. They don’t get paid enough to do the job they have to do. That’s the main issue here in SB. Support LE. They’ll be saving your or someone you love’s a$$ someday, guaranteed.

Illegal Placement of Political Signs?

November Election Four Weeks Away