View Full Version : What would you do?.................
Akron Ohio family attacked in front yard...........
http://www.ohio.com/news/50172282.html
I know with Florida's stand your ground law alot of options would
be available to the prepared individual/s. Not familiar with Ohio law.
Lethal force would have been justified in this instance.
An attack on that scale could very easily have resulted in someone being killed and where it to happen to me or my family...your damn right I would have used a firearm to protect them and myself.
With the amount of attackers I believe lethal force would have been justified. If you're unable/unwilling to carry a firearm at least have a decent knife or mace and training as a back-up plan.
Mr.Goodtimes
07-09-09, 13:51
i woulda started pickin off the ones doin the beating. im guessing after they see some of their friends brains all over them selves and the street, they would probably change their minds as to what theyre doin. this is why we need standard capacity magazines.
If one cannot take responsibility for their own safety, don't expect someone else to be there for you.
I would not have been around to become a victim. A roving group of up to fifty teenagers is usually up to no good, and is anything but stealthy. As soon as I heard or saw that large of a crowd coming towards my family I would have gotten everyone indoors. If we were caught outside, I would place myself between my loved ones and the attackers, and use ANY means to protect them!
kaiservontexas
07-09-09, 14:19
I will be honest that when I go outside to smoke I take my snub nose .357MAG with me. There have been home invasions according to my family in the area. I do not consider myself safe sitting outside smoking a cigarette. I consider myself a target since it means the door is unlocked. Then there are the random things like the above news link, and it just reinforces my decision.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-09-09, 14:52
Damn, if you put that in a movie no one would believe it! The press really didn't pick up on this one, but if a couple of kids got popped or the races were reversed, it would have been all over the news.
but if a couple of kids got popped or the races were reversed, it would have been all over the news.
and there would be no hesitation on the media and DA side to call it "hate crimes".
there's no opinions necessary here- absolutely warrants deadly force. i would have been reaching for the reload before i even started shooting.
Heavy Metal
07-09-09, 17:07
there's no opinions necessary here- absolutely warrants deadly force. i would have been reaching for the reload before i even started shooting.
Yep, this meets the legal definition of a mob and easily justifies a lethal response.
I do not believe that any member of this or similar forum would not use lethal force
on these criminal pigs that were intent on seriously harming/possibly killing a family member.
Lethal force would have been justified in this instance.
An attack on that scale could very easily have resulted in someone being killed and where it to happen to me or my family...your damn right I would have used a firearm to protect them and myself.
you're exactly right. however, if you had shot one of those kids, you'd be hung on a cross.
no matter how it went down, you'd be in for the fight of your life trying to keep yourself out of jail with any of your personal fortune intact. it would probably spell total financial ruin for you and your family.
this is why I preach that anyone who goes armed ALSO NEEDS to carry a non-lethal alternative - OC spray, tazer, oven cleaner, kubotan, whatever...
only then can you offer proof that you only escalated after you did everything you could to avoid it.
you're exactly right. however, if you had shot one of those kids, you'd be hung on a cross.
no matter how it went down, you'd be in for the fight of your life trying to keep yourself out of jail with any of your personal fortune intact. it would probably spell total financial ruin for you and your family.
this is why I preach that anyone who goes armed ALSO NEEDS to carry a non-lethal alternative - OC spray, tazer, oven cleaner, kubotan, whatever...
only then can you offer proof that you only escalated after you did everything you could to avoid it.
I will have to respectively disagree that less than lethal options would have been helpful in this scenario. In fact just the opposite.
The use of a less than lethal weapon would have most likely only incensed the group of nearly 50-teen aged hoodlums.
I have been unfortunent enough to be in the middle of a hostile mob on a couple of occasions in my life. These thugs were out looking for a fight and I think it was a miracle enough that they didn't end up killing someone.
As for my personal fortune...well right now that consists of about $63.00 and they are welcome to it.
As for going to jail...a small price to pay for the safety of my family...Plus if this were to happen here in Missouri...I doubt I would be there long enough to eat more than one or two Salsibury Steak Dinners.
negative.. citizens being physically attacked by a vicious mob of 50 thug-ass banger teenagers are not cops, and would be fools to attempt anything other than good shot placement and smooth reloads.
I'd be willing to wager that more than a few of those sh$theads were armed.
HiggsBoson
07-09-09, 21:38
I don't think there should be a different punishment for "hate crimes". If you gang up on someone and beat them down, then clearly it is a hate crime. But skin color doesn't have enter into the court case. A beating is a beating. In this case, I have to wonder if this is on the border of attempted murder with the number of assailants and the apparent ferocity of the attack.
this is why I preach that anyone who goes armed ALSO NEEDS to carry a non-lethal alternative - OC spray, tazer, oven cleaner, kubotan, whatever...
only then can you offer proof that you only escalated after you did everything you could to avoid it.
By your logic, if you carry a "non-lethal" alternative, you MUST use it or be accused of escalating to lethal force when you had an alternative available. It sounds like you just made an argument against carrying "non-lethal" alternatives. This is the same logic the liberals use to force a home-owner to FLEA his/her own house when under attack. Flight was an alternative and a good citizen should exercise all possible alternatives before defending himself against overwhelming force... right? RIGHT?
Anyway your argument seems pretty weak because in this case using pepper spray would only have you end up on the ground with pepper spray in your face and a mob that is further enraged because you dared fight back. Then they'd be inside your reach and you wouldn't be able to draw your pistol without them being all over you. I'm certainly no expert but if I have only seconds to respond I am not going to be responding to these dozens of goons with some pepper spray.
The_War_Wagon
07-09-09, 21:41
You numbnuts just picked the wrong house... :mad:
http://www.6neweb.fr/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/gran-torino-trailer-1-image-9-grand-format.jpg
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-09-09, 21:48
If victims had used firearms to defend themselves, the mob would have been called a youth chior group, made up of honor students, doing community organization engaged in a take-back-the-night parade.
Someone has to have some phone video of it.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/275701
Be sure and read the comments at the bottom....
Here is a link to the u-tube video from the news also.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXpV2ivgp4A
IMHO this is a pretty clear cut case of justifiable lethal force being warranted. I believe most states have some sort of "disparity of force" law that would cover this.
I also think that the above poster hit it right on the head when he said he would have left or went inside when this mob rolled in.
I live just far enough out of the cities that this mob would have never made it to my little piece of heaven!
I guess if I were unarmed and somehow caught unaware as 50 delinquents came up behind me.... I would go down in flames as I did my best to keep all attention on me while hopefully my wife got our 3 children into a locked car/house for protection from the potential (and very serious) threat.
Had I been armed, I don't know how it would have played out. WOuld I pull the pistol knowing well that by pulling it..... I may be forced to play that hand to the end.... with youths? Could I pull the trigger? Would I hesitate and lock up and be stripped of my own pistol and killed by my own tools?
Lets assume my wife or child were being beaten, that would change things. I would pull the pistol and within a VERY short span of time go from trying to yell for a stop... to shooting for a stop. I will never allow you or anyone else to hurt my babies. For some reason, I can see me not defending my own life by taking a life, but I can see myself taking as many as are required to protect my family. Not sure why.
I am not, nor ever was a soldier or a LEO so I have great doubt as to my ability to pull a trigger. I honestly do not know what will happen inside my big'ol mellon head if that situation ever comes to fruit. Can I do it? I really don't know. Maybe my weakness will cost me my life one day. Maybe self preservation kicks in and you block out the doubt and do what is required to stay alive?
I will have to respectively disagree that less than lethal options would have been helpful in this scenario. In fact just the opposite.
The use of a less than lethal weapon would have most likely only incensed the group of nearly 50-teen aged hoodlums.
I have been unfortunent enough to be in the middle of a hostile mob on a couple of occasions in my life. These thugs were out looking for a fight and I think it was a miracle enough that they didn't end up killing someone.
As for my personal fortune...well right now that consists of about $63.00 and they are welcome to it.
As for going to jail...a small price to pay for the safety of my family...Plus if this were to happen here in Missouri...I doubt I would be there long enough to eat more than one or two Salsibury Steak Dinners.
well, that's the difficult part, now isn't it?
I did not say you wouldn't be justified, I just pointed out you would get hung on a cross if you shot one of those kids. believe how you want to believe, the "average" person would not see the justification. instead, they would see a trigger-happy gun nut who panicked and killed a kid. roll with that...
now, you being armed, in the midst of a "developing" situation, irreversibly changes the dynamic simply because of that one fact. without a gun present, it might be an ass kicking. WITH a gun present, ANY physical confrontation becomes potentially deadly if they discover the weapon and disarm you.
the key word here is developing. at some point in every situation is the tipping point, where critical decisions are made. this is why we preach situational awareness - to identify and head off these deadly situations.
was there one here? I don't know, I wasn't there but I would have to guess that something occurred before a large group of people was able to descend on another group and attack them. however short the amount of time, I'm guessing there was a point before which something could have been done short of killing someone - before the first punch is thrown, not when you're on the ground covering your head and balls.
you're right, once you are physically involved, it's game on. but if you look closely at almost every case of violence, unless it was simply a case of total ambush in a dark hallway, an opportunity to avoid, deescalate, or withdraw presents itself.
and regardless of how small or unrealistic this opportunity is at the time, if a prosecutor or jury thinks you didn't avail yourself of it, you're in a world of shit. that's my point...
there's no opinions necessary here- absolutely warrants deadly force. i would have been reaching for the reload before i even started shooting.
and who would you have shot first? the kid in your face? the first hand laid on you? anyone touching your wife?
clarity of purpose is a glorious thing. and hindsight is twenty twenty...
I don't think there should be a different punishment for "hate crimes". If you gang up on someone and beat them down, then clearly it is a hate crime. But skin color doesn't have enter into the court case. A beating is a beating. In this case, I have to wonder if this is on the border of attempted murder with the number of assailants and the apparent ferocity of the attack.
By your logic, if you carry a "non-lethal" alternative, you MUST use it or be accused of escalating to lethal force when you had an alternative available. It sounds like you just made an argument against carrying "non-lethal" alternatives. This is the same logic the liberals use to force a home-owner to FLEA his/her own house when under attack. Flight was an alternative and a good citizen should exercise all possible alternatives before defending himself against overwhelming force... right? RIGHT?
Anyway your argument seems pretty weak because in this case using pepper spray would only have you end up on the ground with pepper spray in your face and a mob that is further enraged because you dared fight back. Then they'd be inside your reach and you wouldn't be able to draw your pistol without them being all over you. I'm certainly no expert but if I have only seconds to respond I am not going to be responding to these dozens of goons with some pepper spray.
so, you are saying that you know the exact instant to pull the trigger in a situation like this. is it when you feel a fist crashing into your face, or before that?
is it when the crowd has you surrounded and is screaming at you? pushing you? scaring your wife and kids? is it when you first realize that your fat is in the fire? or even before that? when exactly is it that you pull the trigger???
for that matter, when do you pull your gun? (I know the answer to that, do you?)
Expedition
07-10-09, 09:39
The victims of this attack would have been well within Ohio law, as I understand it, to employ deadly force. Disparity of force definitely comes into play here.
Without going into how I would save whatever post I was typing, jump up out my my dad's old office chair in my mom's basement, and run upstairs and grab my (insert coolest new firearm here), and run out and face shoot everyone that needed it, this is a "lose/lose" for this guy. The politics of Ohio are such that in Akron, this guy is north of a line that divides the northern third of the state from the southern two thirds. He would have been a pariah. Everyone one those youths would have been in the church choir and starting medical school next semester. As someone said earlier, he would have been strung up on a cross. Guilty of hate crimes, white supremecist, and on and on.
The northern third of Ohio is very anti-gun, indifferent to black on white or black on black crime, and hypersensitive to white on "anycolor" crime. And maybe there's a reason -- Ohio has a fairly active and large clan (formerly kkk) population on the East side of the state. This race/hate crime BS is a waste. If you act violently on another without cause, you should be punished. I don't care if you are purple or geen or clear. Those laws have existed since Hamurabi (sp?), let's enforce them.
This is a shit sandwich, and that family was lucky that no one was killed... on either side.
As for pepper spraying a crowd fifty: Horse puckey. You disable a few, irritate a few more, enrage the entire mob. Plus you probably end up OC'ing yourself and rendering yourself less "combat effective" in the stampede. This is a good concept if you're a LEO in riot gear, with 50 other LEO's, with mounted patrol backing you up, but not so good for one guy in a mob. The sheer numbers and behavior justify an immediate escalation up the force continuum to deadly force. Stop the specific "bad actors" with a couple of well placed rounds and pray the rest scatter like the roaches they are. If they don't, you are in the (last?) fight of your life.
My $.02
I have a serious question about this scenario. Does anyone have any doubts as to whether this really happened? The reason I ask is because I saw the Youtube interview and no one appeared to have any visible injuries from the "savage" attack.
Did anyone in fact get hospitalized and was there a medical report done? Something about the story is odd, but I can't place my finger on it. Another thing that I find suspicious is that there are apparently no witnesses to what happened (at least according to the police) and one would think that neighbors or others would have seen and heard the "huge" groups of people.
There is speculation that this may be a lie, but for the sake of the argument and the question offered.... "what would you do?".... I tried to reply as honestly as I could any ways.
I do agree with you IG, for a large group throwing punches you would expect to see some facial bruises.
As a matter of fact, my shit bag gay nephew Dereck Sheaffer punched his 50 year old father Dale in the face a few times last weekend and while his dad was down he grabbed a coffe mug and hit him in the side of the head for good measure.
http://i409.photobucket.com/albums/pp174/larry0071/Junk%20Repository/DalesFace.jpg
This is what happens in a fight in under 3 minuts with only one person swinging at you.
The victims of this attack would have been well within Ohio law, as I understand it, to employ deadly force. Disparity of force definitely comes into play here.
Without going into how I would save whatever post I was typing, jump up out my my dad's old office chair in my mom's basement, and run upstairs and grab my (insert coolest new firearm here), and run out and face shoot everyone that needed it, this is a "lose/lose" for this guy. The politics of Ohio are such that in Akron, this guy is north of a line that divides the northern third of the state from the southern two thirds. He would have been a pariah. Everyone one those youths would have been in the church choir and starting medical school next semester. As someone said earlier, he would have been strung up on a cross. Guilty of hate crimes, white supremecist, and on and on.
The northern third of Ohio is very anti-gun, indifferent to black on white or black on black crime, and hypersensitive to white on "anycolor" crime. And maybe there's a reason -- Ohio has a fairly active and large clan (formerly kkk) population on the East side of the state. This race/hate crime BS is a waste. If you act violently on another without cause, you should be punished. I don't care if you are purple or geen or clear. Those laws have existed since Hamurabi (sp?), let's enforce them.
This is a shit sandwich, and that family was lucky that no one was killed... on either side.
As for pepper spraying a crowd fifty: Horse puckey. You disable a few, irritate a few more, enrage the entire mob. Plus you probably end up OC'ing yourself and rendering yourself less "combat effective" in the stampede. This is a good concept if you're a LEO in riot gear, with 50 other LEO's, with mounted patrol backing you up, but not so good for one guy in a mob. The sheer numbers and behavior justify an immediate escalation up the force continuum to deadly force. Stop the specific "bad actors" with a couple of well placed rounds and pray the rest scatter like the roaches they are. If they don't, you are in the (last?) fight of your life.
My $.02
good. we agree on one thing, now how about the other?
so, WHICH ONE do you shoot? or is it more than one, the bad actors, how many? is it two? the two closest to you? which ones?
now, WHEN do you pull the trigger? do you wait till when they're actually attacking you? when they're verbalizing? when you find simply yourself in the middle of an unruly crowd? when???
what happened before that, did you get really nervous?
I'm asking these questions because (1) if you can't answer these questions here, you sure as shit don't have any business going about armed with a deadly weapon.
regardless of all the chest beating going on, if you walk out of your home with a weapon you need to think long and hard about the implications of that. you need to have an understanding aforehand of what signals a deadly response and when that event occurs in different circumstances. decisions have consequences...
and (2) if you can identify that instant, what can and should you do in the seconds prior to that?
everyone here is reacting to this incident like these people were walking along in the grass and an alligator lunged at them and bit them. it that's the case - that this group of 50 kids silently snuck up behind them and attacked them without warning or provocation, then yes, I agree, skin that smokewagon and get to work.
but what if you were walking and saw the alligator in the grass a little ways ahead, possibly before it saw you? should you then kill it? should you even try?
my point is, at some point, there is a go/no go decision to be made about deadly force. what did you do before that point?
did the victims here have ANY precognition of the situation? was there at any point where they simply went, "hey, this is starting to get uncomfortable"? were his "spider senses" tingling? does he even have any???
it just may have been that this guy got sucker punched after a word with one or two and the crowd went into a feeding frenzy. or it may have been a circumstance in which he went against his instincts and didn't immediately remove himself and his family from the area.
in a strict sense, the victim is the loser here, because he allowed this to happen. through ignorance, or denial, or simple naivete, he ignored or didn't recognize the circumstances he was in and violence occurred.
could he have used "pepper spray" to defend himself? I don't know, I wasn't there. had he recognized the situation and responded sooner, maybe...
but at whatever point the situation escalated to deadly force, before THAT point, is when a non-lethal response would be appropriate.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-10-09, 11:42
I have a serious question about this scenario. Does anyone have any doubts as to whether this really happened? The reason I ask is because I saw the Youtube interview and no one appeared to have any visible injuries from the "savage" attack.
I agree, these people are pretty thick-skinned, BUT the 911 call sounded genuine to me. That is fear in his voice. A fake call would have had bravado or even tone, I would think.
As a matter of fact, my shit bag gay nephew Dereck Sheaffer punched his 50 year old father Dale in the face a few times last weekend and while his dad was down he grabbed a coffe mug and hit him in the side of the head for good measure.
Larry - I'm not coming over to your family Thanksgiving Day dinner.
Last weekend was an unusual event, not the norm. Your still welcome for Thanksgiving.... as a matter of fact your welcome for dinner anytime you wish to stop by!
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-10-09, 11:48
Last weekend was an unusual event, not the norm. Your still welcome for Thanksgiving.... as a matter of fact your welcome for dinner anytime you wish to stop by!
If your avatar is your wife, hot-diggity!
Ohio is not the homogenous state that some people think. Cincinnati is almost southern in nature and a lot more conservative. Luckily, when I lived in Ohio, I choose right.
I would have gotten everybody into the house including myself. Even in this supposed attack-I'm with Gunz, sounds fishy-deadly force would not be warranted. Do you think a jury would buy it? Just b/c you are taking an a** kicking it doesn't mean deadly force is warranted. Running into the house is the only realistic option. How can you fight a mob? You can't. I've trained extensively in MMA and all that would mean in a situation like this is I may take one or two out before I get the s*** beat out of me.
Expedition
07-10-09, 12:02
ra2bach,
One: I didn't respond to any one person here, just the ideas presented. I'm not trying to pick a fight with anyone here, just trying to learn and share.
Two: Without knowing the specifics, it's very hard to answer a lot of the questions you ask.
The specifics of the situation dictate one's response. I agree that avoidance should have been key. Not recognizing a group of 50 closing on you seems to be a huge SA FAIL. Also, were there other large groups roaming about and not bringing a rucus? Some neighborhoods take on a nearly street carnival atmosphere during 4th of July, what did this look like. Did nine guys jump on my friend/guest/family member or just one or two? Did one of my group run their mouth or say something that could have caused/escalated the situation? Plus a million other questions that I would have likely processed (correctly or not) subconciously and reacted to, if I had been in this man's shoes that night.
Three: A non-lethal response would have been appropriate when one is threatened with violence, but not in fear of one's life or grave bodily harm.
Hosing down a crowd, group, or person that makes your "spider senses tingle" with OC, without some manner of explicit threat or menacing makes you guilty of assault under Ohio law. You had better be able to articulate your reasons for your response (deadly or non-lethal) and those reasons had better meet some standard of what a "reasonable person" would have done in that circumstance. Also, I would rather have an OC assault charge against me, rather than be dead or wonder if I killed somebody that I could have avoided killing by being smarter. Unfortunately, again, I don't think we know the totality of those circumstances here.
Four: "Who do you shoot first?"
The person that poses the greatest deadly threat to you, or those you have chosen to protect. Target selection can be difficult under good circumstances, good light and one or two others involded. In the dark and in the chaos of melee like this one, it is can be impossible. And you bear the sole responsibility of doing it correctly. Low light/No light training will open your eyes. Get some. And you need to be able to articulate why you shot each person individually.
I think if we had this conversation face to face, we would agree on almost everything. I sincerely apologize if I have offended you personally. That was not my intent.
Chris
Ps--For those of doubting the ferocity of the attack, read here directly from the original Ohio.com article:
"Marshall was the most seriously injured. He suffered a concussion and multiple bruises to his head and eye. He said he spent five nights in the critical care unit at Akron General Medical Center."
He is wearing sunglasses and a hat in the picture, and this happened nearly a week before the picture was taken. I would be very suprised if the police or hospital don't have documentation/evidentiary (sp?, if it's even a word) photos somewhere And his friend, who was the first attacked, isn't shown either.
Five nights in the hospital, yeah it prolly wasn't too bad....
Just to be clear. I believe that deadly force would have been legal, if the story is actually true and that it happened as portrayed. Thus far we have no corroboration. If you are taking an ass kicking from 5 people or even 500 and you can ARTICULATE why you did what you did and in the event of trial you can convince a jury that you acted reasonably and prudent not a problem. My belief is that once a few of them started dropping from shots to the sternum the others would have broke contacted.
Remember that groups like this get their courage from their numbers and not much else.
I would have gotten everybody into the house including myself. Even in this supposed attack-I'm with Gunz, sounds fishy-deadly force would not be warranted. Do you think a jury would buy it? Just b/c you are taking an a** kicking it doesn't mean deadly force is warranted. Running into the house is the only realistic option. How can you fight a mob? You can't. I've trained extensively in MMA and all that would mean in a situation like this is I may take one or two out before I get the s*** beat out of me.
ra2bach,
One: I didn't respond to any one person here, just the ideas presented. I'm not trying to pick a fight with anyone here, just trying to learn and share.
Two: Without knowing the specifics, it's very hard to answer a lot of the questions you ask.
The specifics of the situation dictate one's response. I agree that avoidance should have been key. Not recognizing a group of 50 closing on you seems to be a huge SA FAIL. Also, were there other large groups roaming about and not bringing a rucus? Some neighborhoods take on a nearly street carnival atmosphere during 4th of July, what did this look like. Did nine guys jump on my friend/guest/family member or just one or two? Did one of my group run their mouth or say something that could have caused/escalated the situation? Plus a million other questions that I would have likely processed (correctly or not) subconciously and reacted to, if I had been in this man's shoes that night.
Three: A non-lethal response would have been appropriate when one is threatened with violence, but not in fear of one's life or grave bodily harm.
Hosing down a crowd, group, or person that makes your "spider senses tingle" with OC, without some manner of explicit threat or menacing makes you guilty of assault under Ohio law. You had better be able to articulate your reasons for your response (deadly or non-lethal) and those reasons had better meet some standard of what a "reasonable person" would have done in that circumstance. Also, I would rather have an OC assault charge against me, rather than be dead or wonder if I killed somebody that I could have avoided killing by being smarter. Unfortunately, again, I don't think we know the totality of those circumstances here.
Four: "Who do you shoot first?"
The person that poses the greatest deadly threat to you, or those you have chosen to protect. Target selection can be difficult under good circumstances, good light and one or two others involded. In the dark and in the chaos of melee like this one, it is can be impossible. And you bear the sole responsibility of doing it correctly. Low light/No light training will open your eyes. Get some. And you need to be able to articulate why you shot each person individually.
I think if we had this conversation face to face, we would agree on almost everything. I sincerely apologize if I have offended you personally. That was not my intent.
Chris
Ps--For those of doubting the ferocity of the attack, read here directly from the original Ohio.com article:
"Marshall was the most seriously injured. He suffered a concussion and multiple bruises to his head and eye. He said he spent five nights in the critical care unit at Akron General Medical Center."
He is wearing sunglasses and a hat in the picture, and this happened nearly a week before the picture was taken. I would be very suprised if the police or hospital don't have documentation/evidentiary (sp?, if it's even a word) photos somewhere And his friend, who was the first attacked, isn't shown either.
Five nights in the hospital, yeah it prolly wasn't too bad....
Chris, no offense taken at all. I'm merely asking questions to get people to think about the answers.
I advocate carrying a non-lethal as well as lethal protection as it gives you an alternative - the hammer and nail thing. in the best circumstance, it allows you to avoid escalation to a lethal encounter. in the worst circumstances, it should not prevent you from responding with the proper level of force.
to go about armed with a deadly weapon is a decision made with fore knowledge. to use deadly force is a separate but related decision based on the dynamics of the moment. without careful pre-consideration of potential circumstances, it would be unusual to make quick, rational decisions when in fear for your life.
as I said, decisions have consequences. the question you should ask yourself in every decision is, "can I live with the consequences?"...
Your points 3 and 4 address this situation I will share with you here:
This is not made up, the following are true and fairly accurate from memory of an event 15 years or so back. This is a part of a private PM based conversation, I decided to haul it out and paste it here to show how some folks think. We are all individuals and at that point we all think differently.
And yes, the following is in my voice telling of something that I had been involved with.
I really try to be honest with myself and not try and convince myself that I am some bad to the bone warrior. I am far from it. I have guns, but a gun fighter I will never be. I do not like the thought of killing a rabbit or fox.... so how could I even kill a human? I honestly do not know that I could... If my daughter were being hurt, I think my brain would turn off and I would do WHATEVER it took to protect/save her even if that required my own demise. At least I hope I would be strong enough (mentally) to do whatever was required.
You read so many posts from so many guys that really think that they are ready to take a mans life. I don't think that many of these folks have actually thought about the aftermath (mentally as well as legally) involved with violent actions. If you my life were not in dire jeapordy, I would not pull a gun. If you punched me in the face and I had a gun, we would be in a fist fight. I have promised myself to never be stupid enough to use a gun/knife in a fight that could end with a simple ass-beating.
My wife and I were at a wrestling match (WWF about 15 years ago) and I had my Glock in a shoulder holster under my jacket. In the parking garage (Pittsburgh) 3 larger young men (of similar age to me at that time) were intoxicated and saying shit to my wife. I ignored it, as did she. They got close behind the two of us and got more ignorant so I stopped and turned. My wife started screaming because she thought I was pulling (The pistol). I stood my ground and was partially surounded by the 3 men. (Some words are traded) The largest one in center slammed me in the shoulders pushing me back and I knocked my wife down while tripping back. I got my footing and came at him and took a punch to the side of the face from the dude on my right. A split second later the center guy punched me sqaure in the face breaking my nose. I was staggered bad and bleeding good. I went for him one more time and got grabbed by the left guy and dragged to the wall by him and the guy on the right and they put my back against the wall. The largest guy that was in center punched me some number of times resulting in the back of my head hitting the wall with each hit. I had my right hand under the jacket and on the gun. I could not see my wife (blood and disorientation from minor head trauma) or who else was around, but I heard yells from others (I am suspecting these are help rushing in but can not visually locate anything).... so I left go of the Glock. A second or two later the three drunks ran (as the strangers running towards us and yelling got very close to the action) and were not seen again.
That was the closest I ever came to pulling. I might have been killed with my gun had I pulled, but at least I was still cohearant enough to think about what I was considering.
There was no need to pull in my opinion.... I may have shot my wife, myself, been disarmed and killed with my own gun, or shot one of the guys running to my aid.
It's a very scary thing to consider, even when being attacked. When is it time? When is it right? When are you actually in fear for your life vs getting a good old ass kicking? Do you kill because some drunk wants to start a fight? How does a man make this choice? I do not know if I could (make the choice).
Now... had my wife been touched, the tables would turn very quickly. But she was 10 feet away screaming and crying... in relative safety. They forgot about her and comenced in providing me with all of the attention I could ever ask for. That was the best case scenario for me.... beat on me, leave my wife out of it.
Many here would say I was an idiot and I should have started out shooting. Would I still be a free man and setting here, married with 3 children had I pulled on them? Maybe. Maybe not.
Tough choices. Carrying a pistol openly or concealed is very serious business. Never pull unless you are willing to fire because in pulling a firearm, you up the ante in such a huge way that you are forcing your opponant to react to your new and VERY serious threat. He will answer your "deadly force" with his own (if at all possable). So keep it in the cover unless your really ready to put the rest of your life on the line.
I might have been better to start a new thread with this and not ride the coat tails of this one, if a mod wishes to, let me know.
Just to be clear. I believe that deadly force would have been legal, if the story is actually true and that it happened as portrayed. Thus far we have no corroboration. If you are taking an ass kicking from 5 people or even 500 and you can ARTICULATE why you did what you did and in the event of trial you can convince a jury that you acted reasonably and prudent not a problem. My belief is that once a few of them started dropping from shots to the sternum the others would have broke contacted.
Remember that groups like this get their courage from their numbers and not much else.
true. remember, the article stated the kids were from 9 to 18 y.o. I'd bet they would scatter at the sound of the first shot.
then, I went back and read further on the story and it does appear that the attack was unprovoked and a surprise attack from behind the victims. wow :eek:
however, this would NOT have played well if one or more of these kids were shot, regardless of justification...
The spikes tactical 30mm launcher would be suffice for this kind of situation. I
would pop a smoke in the crowd and try to get the valued target to safety, then I
would start shooting everyone with bean bags to disspurse the crowd( or 00 will
work..JK). I dont think that shooting a bunch of dumb ass degenerates is the
answer to the problem, It will just bring a shit storm right over your head.
Expedition
07-10-09, 14:09
I advocate carrying a non-lethal as well as lethal protection as it gives you an alternative - the hammer and nail thing. in the best circumstance, it allows you to avoid escalation to a lethal encounter. in the worst circumstances, it should not prevent you from responding with the proper level of force.
to go about armed with a deadly weapon is a decision made with fore knowledge. to use deadly force is a separate but related decision based on the dynamics of the moment. without careful pre-consideration of potential circumstances, it would be unusual to make quick, rational decisions when in fear for your life.
as I said, decisions have consequences. the question you should ask yourself in every decision is, "can I live with the consequences?"...
ra2bach,
The above is spot on. Pre-consideration should take the form of recent, relevant, and realistic training which programs effective responses in multiple, varied situations.
Larry0071,
An angel was watching over you and your wife that night. Thanks for sharing for your thoughts and thought processes.
Chris
QuietShootr
07-10-09, 14:49
I guess if I were unarmed and somehow caught unaware as 50 delinquents came up behind me.... I would go down in flames as I did my best to keep all attention on me while hopefully my wife got our 3 children into a locked car/house for protection from the potential (and very serious) threat.
Had I been armed, I don't know how it would have played out. WOuld I pull the pistol knowing well that by pulling it..... I may be forced to play that hand to the end.... with youths? Could I pull the trigger? Would I hesitate and lock up and be stripped of my own pistol and killed by my own tools?
Lets assume my wife or child were being beaten, that would change things. I would pull the pistol and within a VERY short span of time go from trying to yell for a stop... to shooting for a stop. I will never allow you or anyone else to hurt my babies. For some reason, I can see me not defending my own life by taking a life, but I can see myself taking as many as are required to protect my family. Not sure why.
I am not, nor ever was a soldier or a LEO so I have great doubt as to my ability to pull a trigger. I honestly do not know what will happen inside my big'ol mellon head if that situation ever comes to fruit. Can I do it? I really don't know. Maybe my weakness will cost me my life one day. Maybe self preservation kicks in and you block out the doubt and do what is required to stay alive?
Sell your guns.
Gunz-Here in NC unless you can prove you were in imminent danger of losing your life, or to stop a sexual assault, deadly force is not legal. Even if you are going to take a serious beating, deadly force is not ok. If my wife, friend, etc., sees me getting beat down very badly, they cannot use deadly force. How do you convince a jury you were in imminent danger of losing your life? Really hard to do. Now, if there is a knife, gun, bat, pipe, etc. involved, different story. Even then, context and usage will come into play.
Someone gets a split second to make a decision while a jury gets hours, days, or weeks to go over it.
QuietShootr
07-10-09, 14:54
Your points 3 and 4 address this situation I will share with you here:
This is not made up, the following are true and fairly accurate from memory of an event 15 years or so back. This is a part of a private PM based conversation, I decided to haul it out and paste it here to show how some folks think. We are all individuals and at that point we all think differently.
And yes, the following is in my voice telling of something that I had been involved with.
I might have been better to start a new thread with this and not ride the coat tails of this one, if a mod wishes to, let me know.
Holy shit. I hadn't even read this when I posted my last post.
I say again, sell your guns. You do not have the proper mindset to be carrying a firearm. Someone is going to take it from you and stick it up your ass, should you ever muster up the courage to present it.
I don't expect to be attacked in my yard (I live in TX and it is to damn hot outside) but you never know. I wonder how much trouble I'd get into for mowing my lawn with my M-4 strapped across my chest? About seven months ago some of my soldiers were gathered at the residence of one my soldiers. They had a BBQ and later on that night they were drinking beer in the garage while swapping war stories. Sometime after midnight a couple of Hispanic youths crashed the party and held them up in the garage. They youths got a little cash but not more than that. Now I make sure that i give my soldiers a good safety briefing every Friday and I make sure that I let them know about their right to bear arms. Then I tell them I will see you at the gun show this weekend. Most times I will see one or two of them their looking for the perfect carry weapon. After all, these are troubling times and you never know what you might face. I would hate to lose a Joe in a situation that I know they could have navigated safely if they were armed like they would be during deployments. It's a shame that that family had to experience such brutal and senseless mob mentality. I guess the founding fathers weren't to of the mark when the included the 2nd amendment.
I say again, sell your guns. You do not have the proper mindset to be carrying a firearm. Someone is going to take it from you and stick it up your ass, should you ever muster up the courage to present it.
Yea, I'm on it. All of my guns are now for sale.
Yea, I'm on it. All of my guns are now for sale.
Do they come with the avatar girl :D
LOL....no, I'm keeping her!
Yea, I'm on it. All of my guns are now for sale.
Keep your weapons. Not everyone can say that they would react with deadly force. Everyone has a threshold and yours is a threat to your family. Wisdom and discretion is what separates us from the animals. After all, if you drawn for every perceived threat then you will be no better than the fool kid who shoots someone for their Jordan's. I know all to well what kind of emotions well up during these situations. I pretty sure that the family wanted to lay waste to every single one of those kids and everyone associated with them. So keep your weapons because their may come a time when you will need them. I had a First Sergeant who used to say that it is better to have and not want than to want and not have.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-10-09, 16:22
The decision not to do something is still a decision, and perhaps the harderst one to make. How many times have we seen someone do 'something', or worse beseeched you to do 'something' when nothing would have been the wiser path.
Larry is here and alive, and I for one am not going to question his ability to take a beating when it seems to be the family sport.
If his hot body wife thinks he is enough of a man, that's enough for me.
I don't think that you can question anyones decision to stay concealed, unless they end up dead. Valuing three drunk dumbasses lives more than a beating you take from them, that is God damn Christ-like, or at least Ghandi-esque. That Larry had the presence of mind to do that calculation in a stressful situation, kudos.
Who knows, arming his wife, just plain running, waving your arms clucking like a chicken may have all been lead to a better outcome.
I guess the real answer is, without compensating or deluding himself, Larry is comfortable with the decision he made that night.
By the way- who let's armed people into a WWF match???
Deadly force is certainly justified and I think rational. What troubles (and angers me to no end) me is they aren't sure if it's a "hate crime". I don't like special rights for anyone but if the racial roles were reversed this would be on BBC and CNN International.
and who would you have shot first? the kid in your face? the first hand laid on you? anyone touching your wife?
clarity of purpose is a glorious thing. and hindsight is twenty twenty...
so, you are saying that you know the exact instant to pull the trigger in a situation like this. is it when you feel a fist crashing into your face, or before that?
is it when the crowd has you surrounded and is screaming at you? pushing you? scaring your wife and kids? is it when you first realize that your fat is in the fire? or even before that? when exactly is it that you pull the trigger???
for that matter, when do you pull your gun? (I know the answer to that, do you?)
you pull your sidearm the moment you decide you're in danger, and you shoot the moment that danger does not stop at the sight of you pulling.
so, if the sight of the gun does not dispurse the crowd, it goes something like this:
mob is looking at you and moving toward you, shouting unfriendly things at you. you figure the average front lawn is an average of 9 feet from the average neighborhood street, and we can assume this mob of approximately 50 bangers was moving through the street, and probably filling it pretty good. lets also figure that the average front door is an average of 20 feet from the average sidewalk.. this gives us an average of 29 feet of space to work with. as we know, you need to draw and fire very quickly for any situation at this distance, as a person running can reach you before you can fire within 21 feet.
so.... mob is approaching. i draw my pistol, bring it up, take aim at the closest punk-ass bitch, shoot him one or twice, and begin shooting at the next closest, and continue.
at the grand jury hearing, the grand jury, of ALL WHITE PEOPLE (because i live in a small, entirely white, redneck town 45 miles from anything that can be called a city) will be asked to picture themselves standing in their front yard minding their own business when a literal MOB of BLACK gang bangers came screaming racial hate speech and began threatening your family's life.. the grand jury would then hear how you drew your sidearm, and will then hear that the sight of your sidearm did not change their stride. they'll also hear about things like "deadman's distance" and "action-reaction."
and they won't indict.
the civil suit that is even more likely than than it would usually be should go about the same- but we all know that civil suits can go either way, depending on the judge, the jury, and who's got the better lawyer.
but you know what? your family will be alive.
Someone gets a split second to make a decision while a jury gets hours, days, or weeks to go over it.
a long time LEO told me...."Better to be judged by 12, then carried by 6".
you make the decision, that at the end of the day, you are going home. Possibly to court, but at least you will not be at room temperature.
...Any man who is a man may not, in honor, submit to
threats or violence. But many men who are not cowards are
simply unprepared for the fact of human savagery. They
have not thought about it (incredible as this may appear to
anyone who reads the paper or listens to the news) and they
just don't know what to do. When they look right into the
face of depravity or violence, they are astonished and
confounded.
This can be corrected...
-Col. Cooper ; principles of personal defense
if you are unfamilliar with this work, would you like to learn more?
HiggsBoson
07-10-09, 19:55
so, you are saying that you know the exact instant to pull the trigger in a situation like this. is it when you feel a fist crashing into your face, or before that?
is it when the crowd has you surrounded and is screaming at you? pushing you? scaring your wife and kids? is it when you first realize that your fat is in the fire? or even before that? when exactly is it that you pull the trigger???
for that matter, when do you pull your gun? (I know the answer to that, do you?)
Thanks for trying to put words into my mouth, ra2bach, but no that's not what I was saying. :rolleyes: Unfortunately, there are no easy answers to these questions. You act as if I am somehow obligated to answer all your ludicrous hypotheticals in this lose-lose situation or I must be ignorant of the implications.
I was just pointing out that "non-lethal" devices can make things more complicated; and your twisted logic makes it sound like I should be obligated to use non-lethal force even if the situation may justify lethal force. I don't disagree with the idea of having a less lethal alternative. I just disagree with your logic.
The best answer to this hypothetical (for me) is situational awareness, thereby avoiding it entirely. To step back even further, I don't live in a neighborhood where this would ever happen nor do I spend much time in such neighborhoods. If I did, I sure wouldn't be bringing my family there with me. So "when do you pull your gun?" Preferably not at all. There: my silly hypothetical trumps your silly hypothetical.
you pull your sidearm the moment you decide you're in danger, and you shoot the moment that danger does not stop at the sight of you pulling.
bkb0000, I think this brings up interesting legal questions, depending on the state/municipality/etc one is in. If they then disperse and call the cops, was I guilty of brandishing? How can I prove I was "in danger"? I run the risk, in some jurisdictions, of having my firearms confiscated then. Most places (where I live included) would not even see the homeowner get indicted. But in a place where something like this is even going to happen, it may not be so clear cut. I believe, within the laws of the jurisdiction where I live, that I could order them to leave my yard and if they instead advance on me and my family, I have a right to defend myself using lethal force if necessary. If I were alone in the yard or otherwise able to retreat, I think I would obviously have to do so.
HiggsBoson
07-10-09, 20:19
And yes, the following is in my voice telling of something that I had been involved with.
You are a wiser, braver, and more honest man than I am, Larry. Thanks for sharing that. It really made me think.
this thread has wandered into the unfortunate and infinite realm of minutia.
at the moment you are forced to decide whether to pull and shoot or not, all these bullshit arguments about legalities dont mean anything. for real.
do you feel like you or another "innocent" are about to die or suffer serious bodily harm? then draw and fire. debating all these legal points just clutters up the ability to save lives, and is detrimental to a self-defense philosophy.
you pull your sidearm the moment you decide you're in danger, and you shoot the moment that danger does not stop at the sight of you pulling.
so, if the sight of the gun does not dispurse the crowd, it goes something like this:
mob is looking at you and moving toward you, shouting unfriendly things at you. you figure the average front lawn is an average of 9 feet from the average neighborhood street, and we can assume this mob of approximately 50 bangers was moving through the street, and probably filling it pretty good. lets also figure that the average front door is an average of 20 feet from the average sidewalk.. this gives us an average of 29 feet of space to work with. as we know, you need to draw and fire very quickly for any situation at this distance, as a person running can reach you before you can fire within 21 feet.
so.... mob is approaching. i draw my pistol, bring it up, take aim at the closest punk-ass bitch, shoot him one or twice, and begin shooting at the next closest, and continue.
at the grand jury hearing, the grand jury, of ALL WHITE PEOPLE (because i live in a small, entirely white, redneck town 45 miles from anything that can be called a city) will be asked to picture themselves standing in their front yard minding their own business when a literal MOB of BLACK gang bangers came screaming racial hate speech and began threatening your family's life.. the grand jury would then hear how you drew your sidearm, and will then hear that the sight of your sidearm did not change their stride. they'll also hear about things like "deadman's distance" and "action-reaction."
and they won't indict.
the civil suit that is even more likely than than it would usually be should go about the same- but we all know that civil suits can go either way, depending on the judge, the jury, and who's got the better lawyer.
but you know what? your family will be alive.
sorry. first, you present your weapon only after you have made the decision to use lethal force. you do NOT use as a talisman and wave it around to impress people, or scare people and ward off danger.
it is possible though, that after presenting your weapon, the situation changes so that you do not have to shoot but that doesn't change the initial intent. the sole purpose of drawing your gun is to shoot your gun. until you have determined that lethal for
next, the "deadman's distance" you speak of, is the distance (21ft.) at which someone may strike you with an edged or blunt weapon in under a second (or something like that...). the article does not state that any of the attackers were armed.
so, in your scenario, you'd be shooting into an unarmed crowd, composed of children aged 9-18, who were screaming at you. I don't care how "homogeneous" your town, city, or state is, that's not going to cover the legal standard for use of deadly force.
sorry. first, you present your weapon only after you have made the decision to use lethal force. you do NOT use as a talisman and wave it around to impress people, or scare people and ward off danger.
it is possible though, that after presenting your weapon, the situation changes so that you do not have to shoot but that doesn't change the initial intent. the sole purpose of drawing your gun is to shoot your gun. until you have determined that lethal for
next, the "deadman's distance" you speak of, is the distance (21ft.) at which someone may strike you with an edged or blunt weapon in under a second (or something like that...). the article does not state that any of the attackers were armed.
so, in your scenario, you'd be shooting into an unarmed crowd, composed of children aged 9-18, who were screaming at you. I don't care how "homogeneous" your town, city, or state is, that's not going to cover the legal standard for use of deadly force.
doesn't ****in matter what you think, partner. what matter is that i don't get watch my wife and children kicked/punched/stabbed/hit with shit to death. you've obviously got a real high opinion of your knowledge and reasoning ability- go reason yourself out of acting when you need to act all by yourself, and quit trying to make people over think things. the original article i read stated the man was in the ICU for a week- that's not serious bodily injury?
you're trying to make this sound like what it could have been, but wasn't. less-lethal force?
group comes down the street- they see our victim, approach quickly screaming racial slurs. it takes probably 2.5-3 second for them to get from the street to punching him to the ground. which less lethal device shall we use? well, let's grab the x26... opps, they're already to me. now, in my hand, i have a 1-shot taser instead of a pistol, but now that i'm getting my ass handed to me, they also have my pistol off my hip. i can do contact zaps with the x26, but now that i've been shot i dont feel up to it. gay.
let's try some pepper spray... 1, 2, 3- they're on me... oops.. too late to use pepper spray.. i try it anyway, and they all mob up on me REALLY pissed, and i can't even really defend myself because i got as much as they did. now i don't have my pistol, and, again, they do. also gay
let's pull out the ASP i usually carry with my x26 and pepper spray, concealed, on my person.. mob gets to me just as i've extended it- maybe i even get one right square accross the face- CRACK... hell yea, i ****ed him up. but now i'm being beaten to the ground with my own ASP and they have my pistol.
this is working great, but think i'll just stick with the pistol.
see my last post. you're the guy pulling all this minutia out of your ass and passing it around. i know it hurts that big ol' ego of yours that nobody else is accepting this crap, but give it a ****in rest.
sorry. first, you present your weapon only after you have made the decision to use lethal force. you do NOT use as a talisman and wave it around to impress people, or scare people and ward off danger.
it is possible though, that after presenting your weapon, the situation changes so that you do not have to shoot but that doesn't change the initial intent. the sole purpose of drawing your gun is to shoot your gun. until you have determined that lethal for
forgot to address this.
i am not a petite housewife home alone with a .38 in the kitchen drawer. do not presume to tell me "you present your weapon only after you have made the decision to use lethal force." if you hold to this NRA CCW-class presentation idea that you HAVE to shoot once you draw your weapon, you need to re-educate yourself before pontificating about defensive handgun tactics around here.
Thanks for trying to put words into my mouth, ra2bach, but no that's not what I was saying. :rolleyes: Unfortunately, there are no easy answers to these questions. You act as if I am somehow obligated to answer all your ludicrous hypotheticals in this lose-lose situation or I must be ignorant of the implications.
I was just pointing out that "non-lethal" devices can make things more complicated; and your twisted logic makes it sound like I should be obligated to use non-lethal force even if the situation may justify lethal force. I don't disagree with the idea of having a less lethal alternative. I just disagree with your logic.
The best answer to this hypothetical (for me) is situational awareness, thereby avoiding it entirely. To step back even further, I don't live in a neighborhood where this would ever happen nor do I spend much time in such neighborhoods. If I did, I sure wouldn't be bringing my family there with me. So "when do you pull your gun?" Preferably not at all. There: my silly hypothetical trumps your silly hypothetical.
I never claimed you ''should be obligated to use non-lethal force even if the situation may justify lethal force." - that's my whole point. I claimed you have a duty to avoid or deescalate a situation, if possible, BEFORE it becomes deadly.
that is why I advocate carrying non-lethal if you also carry lethal. sometimes, simply the presence of a firearm itself creates an escalation of the situation to a lethal encounter that wouldn't have been so in the first place.
I'm not singling you out, btw, and I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm asking questions to get you to think.
the consequences of use of deadly force are extreme and irreversibly life changing. for you, for everyone involved, and for those who depend on you.
believe it or not, every jurisdiction has clear cut standards for determining whether the use of deadly force is justified. the fact that you talk around this indicates to me that you don't know what they are in your jurisdiction.
you could probably get the answers to every one of the questions I asked at a CCW qualification class or a good self-defense training course. you would be wise to do so.
doesn't ****in matter what you think, partner. what matter is that i don't get watch my wife and children kicked/punched/stabbed/hit with shit to death. you've obviously got a real high opinion of your knowledge and reasoning ability- go reason yourself out of acting when you need to act all by yourself, and quit trying to make people over think things. the original article I read stated the man was in the ICU for a week - that's not serious bodily injury?
you're trying to make this sound like what it could have been, but wasn't. less-lethal force?
group comes down the street- they see our victim, approach quickly screaming racial slurs. it takes probably 2.5-3 second for them to get from the street to punching him to the ground. which less lethal device shall we use? well, let's grab the x26... oops, they're already to me. now, in my hand, i have a 1-shot taser instead of a pistol, but now that i'm getting my ass handed to me, they also have my pistol off my hip. i can do contact zaps with the x26, but now that i've been shot i dont feel up to it. gay.
let's try some pepper spray... 1, 2, 3- they're on me... oops... too late to use pepper spray.. i try it anyway, and they all mob up on me REALLY pissed, and i can't even really defend myself because i got as much as they did. now i don't have my pistol, and, again, they do. also gay
let's pull out the ASP i usually carry with my x26 and pepper spray, concealed, on my person.. mob gets to me just as i've extended it- maybe i even get one right square accross the face- CRACK... hell yea, i ****ed him up. but now i'm being beaten to the ground with my own ASP and they have my pistol.
this is working great, but think i'll just stick with the pistol.
see my last post. you're the guy pulling all this minutia out of your ass and passing it around. i know it hurts that big ol' ego of yours that nobody else is accepting this crap, but give it a ****in rest.
Classic, dude! :p
doesn't ****in matter what you think, partner. what matter is that i don't get watch my wife and children kicked/punched/stabbed/hit with shit to death. you've obviously got a real high opinion of your knowledge and reasoning ability- go reason yourself out of acting when you need to act all by yourself, and quit trying to make people over think things. the original article i read stated the man was in the ICU for a week- that's not serious bodily injury?
you're trying to make this sound like what it could have been, but wasn't. less-lethal force?
group comes down the street- they see our victim, approach quickly screaming racial slurs. it takes probably 2.5-3 second for them to get from the street to punching him to the ground. which less lethal device shall we use? well, let's grab the x26... opps, they're already to me. now, in my hand, i have a 1-shot taser instead of a pistol, but now that i'm getting my ass handed to me, they also have my pistol off my hip. i can do contact zaps with the x26, but now that i've been shot i dont feel up to it. gay.
let's try some pepper spray... 1, 2, 3- they're on me... oops.. too late to use pepper spray.. i try it anyway, and they all mob up on me REALLY pissed, and i can't even really defend myself because i got as much as they did. now i don't have my pistol, and, again, they do. also gay
let's pull out the ASP i usually carry with my x26 and pepper spray, concealed, on my person.. mob gets to me just as i've extended it- maybe i even get one right square accross the face- CRACK... hell yea, i ****ed him up. but now i'm being beaten to the ground with my own ASP and they have my pistol.
this is working great, but think i'll just stick with the pistol.
see my last post. you're the guy pulling all this minutia out of your ass and passing it around. i know it hurts that big ol' ego of yours that nobody else is accepting this crap, but give it a ****in rest.
help me out here. after reading all this, I can't decide whether this is chest beating, or mouth breathing...
you're obviously a big boy, do as you will. hell, you can go full retard for all I care.
just don't call me "partner", partner...
I never claimed you ''should be obligated to use non-lethal force even if the situation may justify lethal force." - that's my whole point. I claimed you have a duty to avoid or deescalate a situation, if possible, BEFORE it becomes deadly.
that is why I advocate carrying non-lethal if you also carry lethal. sometimes, simply the presence of a firearm itself creates an escalation of the situation to a lethal encounter that wouldn't have been so in the first place.
I'm not singling you out, btw, and I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm asking questions to get you to think.
the consequences of use of deadly force are extreme and irreversibly life changing. for you, for everyone involved, and for those who depend on you.
believe it or not, every jurisdiction has clear cut standards for determining whether the use of deadly force is justified. the fact that you talk around this indicates to me that you don't know what they are in your jurisdiction.
you could probably get the answers to every one of the questions I asked at a CCW qualification class or a good self-defense training course. you would be wise to do so.
I've drawn on one person and two dogs in public; broad daylight, middle of the day traffic public. In each case I WAS in fear of grave bodily damage. Did I shoot? No. But I did sweep the safety on the dogs, though. Was everyone able to go home with little more than a blood pressure spike or two? Yes. Was I prepared to press the trigger until the perceived threats got better ideas or expired? Abso-fvkkin'-lutely. Would I have responded the exact same way if I could do it all over again? Yes, I would. Would it be justified? Yes.
I get your point and I agree about less than lethal/non-lethal options but now I'm even more wary when I'm carrying pepper spray as I KNOW what it will do to me - and I have a pistol on me... I'm temporarily disabled and you get my pistol. Oh, shit. I have a small issue where I am now because tasers are legal here and you know how testosterone feeds stupidity. I'm just waiting for the first test case of some clown pulling his taser and gets laid to rest...
Spit soda all over my keyboard when I saw this:
As a matter of fact, my shit bag gay nephew Dereck Sheaffer punched his 50 year old father Dale in the face a few times last weekend and while his dad was down he grabbed a coffe mug and hit him in the side of the head for good measure.
http://i409.photobucket.com/albums/pp174/larry0071/Junk%20Repository/DalesFace.jpg
This is what happens in a fight in under 3 minuts with only one person swinging at you.
Lost it again when I read this:
Sell your guns.
And this:
Holy shit. I hadn't even read this when I posted my last post.
I say again, sell your guns. You do not have the proper mindset to be carrying a firearm. Someone is going to take it from you and stick it up your ass, should you ever muster up the courage to present it.
I've gotta say this is the funniest thread I've read in awhile.
Oh yeah, as for the scenario, I guess if I have no avenue of retreat, looks like its a target-rich environment.
ETA: Larry, if you are selling your guns, I'm looking for a 2nd gen Glock 19. Let me know.
ETA: Larry, if you are selling your guns, I'm looking for a 2nd gen Glock 19. Let me know.
there's been a couple of them in the member exchange in recent times, probably still is.
there's been a couple of them in the member exchange in recent times, probably still is.
Nah, all gone. Anyway, hijack over.
kaiservontexas
07-11-09, 16:42
Let's face it the best thing to stop somebody is a firearm and not a french tickler.
I do not care if the person is 5' 1" or 7" tall and built like a tank. All individuals have a right to stop their assailant. I do not see why there is even an discussion on what to use to protect one's life from a bunch of assailants. A mob rolling up on a person requires something more then a walking stick for defense.
furthermore, under certain circumstances, you've got the right, and even the duty to yourself, to shoot the shit out of ONE unarmed assailant, if he knows you're armed.
old SWAT saying: Even if there's no guns there, there's guns there- cause we're bringing them.
bkb:
ooook. Time to put your signal on and get back in your lane. You've been out of it for a while. (read: a few different threads)
The board:
I vote to shut this one down. It's been pushed by a few people, once again, into full retard. These threads are starting to scar and scab the front page of our forum. I've had my hand in a few and for my part, I apologize. I'll do better. Let's cut the shit fellas.
No, don't ask "point out to me........." "give me an example......." etc. Be mature.
so to paraphrase: "You guys are dumb. I'm not tellin' you why, you just are."
If you're gonna call out BS, call it out- post here or send some PMs. this is an internet board, i doubt anyone's scared of your criticism- public or private.
Thomas M-4
07-11-09, 19:03
doesn't ****in matter what you think, partner. what matter is that i don't get watch my wife and children kicked/punched/stabbed/hit with shit to death. you've obviously got a real high opinion of your knowledge and reasoning ability- go reason yourself out of acting when you need to act all by yourself, and quit trying to make people over think things. the original article i read stated the man was in the ICU for a week- that's not serious bodily injury?
you're trying to make this sound like what it could have been, but wasn't. less-lethal force?
group comes down the street- they see our victim, approach quickly screaming racial slurs. it takes probably 2.5-3 second for them to get from the street to punching him to the ground. which less lethal device shall we use? well, let's grab the x26... opps, they're already to me. now, in my hand, i have a 1-shot taser instead of a pistol, but now that i'm getting my ass handed to me, they also have my pistol off my hip. i can do contact zaps with the x26, but now that i've been shot i dont feel up to it. gay.
let's try some pepper spray... 1, 2, 3- they're on me... oops.. too late to use pepper spray.. i try it anyway, and they all mob up on me REALLY pissed, and i can't even really defend myself because i got as much as they did. now i don't have my pistol, and, again, they do. also gay
let's pull out the ASP i usually carry with my x26 and pepper spray, concealed, on my person.. mob gets to me just as i've extended it- maybe i even get one right square accross the face- CRACK... hell yea, i ****ed him up. but now i'm being beaten to the ground with my own ASP and they have my pistol.
this is working great, but think i'll just stick with the pistol.
see my last post. you're the guy pulling all this minutia out of your ass and passing it around. i know it hurts that big ol' ego of yours that nobody else is accepting this crap, but give it a ****in rest.
Man you had me in tears on this post funny as shit:D
One thing I wouldn't do is answer a question like this on the interweb...
Damn, ZDL. You got a serious hard-on for me, eh?
Don't worry- though you tried to be as insulting as you could, I find I dont really have anything to say. i don't reciprocate your firey hatred, and still don't understand where these occasional attacks out of left field come from.
But, since this episode obviously transcends this thread- by a long shot- PM incoming.
Gents,
Obviously an issue like this is going to bring out strong opinions. Most of us live in different jurisdictions and so obviously the legalities of any action can and will vary from locale to locale.
One thing to keep in mind here is that there are no absolutes. What ZDL or ra2bach would do as opposed to bkb, may or may not be the same.
For those saying that they wouldn't shoot, "Oh the children" stuff like that remember that in a situation like this you may not even be aware that they are children. Your adrenaline will be pumping and hopefully you will kick into survival mode. Afterwards you will need to have good counsel and be ready to articulate why you took the action that you did. It's entirely possible that you don't get arrested or you may be locked up right away and denounced as a "baby killer" in the newspapers. Also the jury of your peers may well be just like those who you took action against. Things to ponder.
1) Situational Awareness
2) A hasty retreat away from said mob....
words alone, even from a large group of people, don't justify lethal force...
which is the catch-22 of this situation....
to me, the only "clear use" of deadly force I see would have been after the beating had begun by someone else (defense of another)
but the idea that a group of people screaming mean and nasty things at you....even approaching you screaming mean and nasty things....isn't justification for deadly force under any legal standard I am familiar with (but granted, I am only a member of the VA Bar, not Ohio's)..
and its the case for one simple reason....
what if they stop...that's right...what if they walk onto your lawn, stand there, berate you and then move on down the street...their mere presence and force of words is not a deadly threat and imminent bodily harm..
self-defense is a reactive affirmative defense...not a proactive affirmative defense...
"he said he might hurt me, so I shot him because I believed he would do it..." nope
"he said he might hurt me then pulled out a gun"...yep
so again, its a catch-22....by the time deadly force was probably justified in this situation it was probably too late for the victim to employ (i.e. they had closed the gap, engaged in hand to hand combat, and he was overwhelmed)
his second best option would have been to make sure the people he was with (i.e. his wife, friends) were prepared to employ deadly force in his defense...
his BEST option was to exercise some situational awareness and not be there in the first place
to answer a few of your questions:
1) I do believe they were on their front lawn...when I say "beat a hasty retreat" I mean....go inside...go around the back of your house....i understand anyone has a right to be on their front lawn, and the mob was "trespassing"....having said that, moving away does a few things
a) it may be enough to encourage the mob to simply move to another target
b) it allows you a better chance to improve your tactical situation....you can lock doors to your house...better arm yourself...alert authorities so the cavalry is on the way...all sorts of things....the dumbest of which, in my opinion, is standing there staring down a mob by yourself
c) It also, were it to come to a self defense shooting sort of situation, does a lot more to clarify your situation and the mob's intent:
"what did you do when you saw the mob?"
"I moved inside my house to get away from them"
"and what happened next?"
"they chased me onto my porch and began trying to kick in and break my door down...."
2) Finally, to clarify the legal issues, at least from my viewpoint...
i do believe that there is a very fine line, at common law, in which deadly force is not justified...as I said, I think that line gets crossed when the threat of imminent grievous bodily harm is present....I don't think that many juries would see the mere presence of a large group, even one close to you and clearly hostile, as crossing that line...there is going to have to be some form of overt violent act....and as I said, unfortunately in this instance by the time that overt act occurs its probably too late for the victim....
Virginia is not a "stand your ground state"....nor do we have a codified "castle doctrine"....although both of those things exist at common law in various incarnations....in either instance, however, use of deadly force in self defense is a defense of necessity...and I think your chances are 50/50 at best in justifying shooting someone in a mob whose only open acts were yelling bad things at you and moving onto your lawn
having said that, I would be interested to see case law from various states, and how they apply their castle doctrines, either codified or common law, to front lawns as opposed to houses
Gunz-Here in NC unless you can prove you were in imminent danger of losing your life, or to stop a sexual assault, deadly force is not legal. Even if you are going to take a serious beating, deadly force is not ok. If my wife, friend, etc., sees me getting beat down very badly, they cannot use deadly force. How do you convince a jury you were in imminent danger of losing your life? Really hard to do. Now, if there is a knife, gun, bat, pipe, etc. involved, different story. Even then, context and usage will come into play.
Someone gets a split second to make a decision while a jury gets hours, days, or weeks to go over it.
Excellent summary. Well done.
Drop this shit, it is enough! jeez
Your adrenaline will be pumping and hopefully you will kick into survival mode. Afterwards you will need to have good counsel and be ready to articulate why you took the action that you did.
Another great bit of information.
These types of things really can't be planned out. As mentioned some time ago in a similar thread, I was involved in a somewhat similar situation and chose to fire in the air to disperse the situation rather than kill because I suspected I was walking on a fine line. They were asking for serious trouble no doubt, but I wanted to remain a free man. I simply needed to get them the f*ck off my property before someone really did get hurt.
I was given substantial grief for that decision here in this forum. The opinions come at you from everywhere, but the reality is that until one is in a specific situation themselves, they really can't judge with total clarity. I had seconds to consider everything, not minutes or hours.
Safetyhit,
I think I slammed you a little as well. The main reason is because I don't believe in warning shots. My feeling is that if I produce my weapon, and I have to start firing warning shots then I am probably already justified to start naming targets. JM2CW.
Another great bit of information.
These types of things really can't be planned out. As mentioned some time ago in a similar thread, I was involved in a somewhat similar situation and chose to fire in the air to disperse the situation rather than kill because I suspected I was walking on a fine line. They were asking for serious trouble no doubt, but I wanted to remain a free man. I simply needed to get them the f*ck off my property before someone really did get hurt.
I was given substantial grief for that decision here in this forum. The opinions come at you from everywhere, but the reality is that until one is in a specific situation themselves, they really can't judge with total clarity. I had seconds to consider everything, not minutes or hours.
My feeling is that if I produce my weapon, and I have to start firing warning shots then I am probably already justified to start naming targets.
In a perfect world my friend. In a perfect world.
It has nothing to do with a perfect world. Remember you will be held accountable for every round that you fire. So if you accidentally hit someone with a warning shot you are screwed. In addition you may be wasting valuable ammunition especially when talking about multiple assailants.
And I may be wrong about this but many LE agencies also do not authorize warning shots and from what I know it is expressely prohibited under Arizona Revised Statutes.
In a perfect world my friend. In a perfect world.
It has nothing to do with a perfect world. Remember you will be held accountable for every round that you fire. So if you accidentally hit someone with a warning shot you are screwed. In addition you may be wasting valuable ammunition especially when talking about multiple assailants.
And I may be wrong about this but many LE agencies also do not authorize warning shots and from what I know it is expressely prohibited under Arizona Revised Statutes.
All I can and will say in response is that by doing what I did I diffused an extremely dangerous situation in which no one was harmed in any way except perhaps emotionally. It was getting real bad real fast, I promise you.
My shots were certainly not "authorized" as mentioned above. Yes, as you may recall, I was charged. Yes, it was extremely difficult. In the end though, I did well in court and am free to own firearms in one of the most restrictive states in the nation.
That was 1988. On to better days, lesson learned.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.