PDA

View Full Version : WWYD - Video


westphoenix
April 24, 2006, 04:41 PM
What would you do if you were armed and witnessed this?

Watch the video first. (http://www.ogrish.com/archives/2006/april/ogrish-dot-com-lasvegasbeating.wmv)
Make your decision, then read this: (http://www.ogrish.com/archives/casino_worker_brutally_beaten_Apr_20_2006.html)

The reason I ask you to watch the video first is because I don't think you should know the details until after you have made your decision on how to handle situation. If you were confronted with this scenario you wouldn't know the details until later. Of course in this scenario you also wouldn't have much time to make a decision, but there's not much we can do about that here.

Just curious to see what you guys think you would have done and what you think should have been done.

Blackwater OPS
April 24, 2006, 05:07 PM
Monday morning quarterbacking is easy here, he never should have approached a group that large alone. A good tactical pocket folder would have served nicely there. a Handgun would have been pretty useless IMO, I would have left it in the holster and pulled my CRKT M16. It kinda hard to beat on someone with your tendons cut:cool: That guy deserves some credit for walking away from a beating like that though.

westphoenix
April 24, 2006, 05:14 PM
What would you do if you were armed and witnessed this?

Topthis
April 24, 2006, 05:17 PM
I'm pretty sure that the reason this guy was attacked, was because he was alone. These perps were looking for an easy target and I am sure that there was a supercharge of adrenaline as they certainly had security in numbers. Serious wrong place at the wrong time for the victim...it will be interesting to see how the casinos work up a plan for this.
As for what I would have done if I witnessed this and were armed...well, i sure as hell wouldn't pull out my weapon, who knows what the kids had underneath their coats? Don't even want to think about what this could escalate into!! I would have most likely run to help the guy...after calling 911, maybe gotten excellent descriptions of a few of the perps, maybe followed them to make sure that there would be a greater than average chance of catching them...ahhh, perhaps I would have pulled out my "9" Iron and started to whack some noggins!!

rapier144
April 24, 2006, 05:17 PM
Second post??????????

westphoenix
April 24, 2006, 05:25 PM
Sorry

Second post??????????
Do you have a link?

Blackwater OPS
April 24, 2006, 06:25 PM
What would you do if you were armed and witnessed this? Deadly force. Hit the first guy you have a clean shot at and hope the rest scatter. If they don't well, hopefully you took that shot from behind some cover and you have few extra mags. You haven't been neglecting your range time have you?

axslingerW
April 24, 2006, 09:01 PM
link is no good, but I found the clip. My first thought was a warning shot to try and scatter the gang. However, my daily carry is for defence, and It would be hard to engage this crowd from a distance with my p-11. Better to call 911 first, and then give first aid. It wouldn't do the victom any good to get myself beat. If I had more ammo, and a longer range weapon my answer would be different. It would not be easy to watch this happen.

error426
April 24, 2006, 09:15 PM
Hard to say. Depending on my distance, I believe I would fire a few shots in the air (if I'm covered by something), in hopes the shots would scatter them. If not, I would take 2 or 3 shots at the crowd randomly (again hoping this scatters them), if this does no good -- then the guy being beat is sol. Right after this I would dial 911, as I'm sure others nearby would be doing as well.

Though if you look at I from a different perspective, if I escalated the situation, I could get the guard killed / or myself as well.

To be honest, it's hard to say what would really go down. I can say for a fact if it were less than 5, I'd take the shots. But 10+, I'm just not that confident -- nor would I want to see the victim or possibly other victims killed or beaten half to death.

DNK
April 24, 2006, 09:19 PM
I couldn't find the link. From the posts I read, am I correct in assuming this is the video of the guy at the MGM in Vegas getting the snot beaten out of him by the mob of teenagers?

Kiel_Everett
April 24, 2006, 09:26 PM
That incident happened sometime last week here in Las Vegas. Another related incident occurred the day after at a Wal-Mart, where the mob attacked a Wal-Mart employee and then turned on a woman who tried to help the employee. They have a total of 3 in custody I believe.

I don't carry, but I sure would try to help. I don't think I could live with myself afterwards if I just 'watched'. Kind of makes you wonder, "Did anyone see this?"

garryc
April 24, 2006, 10:01 PM
Call the cops.
This from Ohio's CCW booklet, read espesially the red letter parts;

Defense of Others
A person may defend another only if the protected person
would have had the right to use self-defense. Under Ohio law, a
person may defend family members, friends or strangers. However,
just as if he were protecting himself, a person cannot use any
more force than is reasonable and necessary to prevent the harm
threatened.
A defendant, who claims he used deadly force to protect
another, has to prove that he reasonably and honestly believed that
the person he protected was in immediate danger of serious bodily
harm or death and that deadly force was the only way to protect the
person from that danger. Furthermore, the defendant must also
show that the protected person was not at fault for creating the
situation and did not have a duty to leave or avoid the situation.
WARNING:
The law specifically discourages citizens from taking
matters into their own hands and acting as law enforcement
agents. This is true even if the person thinks he is performing a
good deed by protecting someone or helping law enforcement.
The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that a person risks criminal
charges if he interferes in a struggle and protects the person who
was at fault, even if he mistakenly believed that person did not
create the situation.In other words, if you misinterpret a situation and interfere,
you may face criminal charges because your use of deadly force
is not justified. If you do not know all the facts and interfere,
you will not be justified to use force. It does not matter that you
mistakenly believed another was in danger and not at fault.Of greater concern than risking criminal charges is the fact
that you may be putting yourself and others in danger. If you
use your handgun to interfere in a situation, and an officer
arrives on the scene, the officer will not be able to tell if you are
the criminal or if you are the Good Samaritan.
Ohio law does not encourage vigilantism. A license to
carry a concealed handgun does not deputize you as a law
enforcement agent. Officers are trained to protect members of
the community, handle all types of situations and enforce the
law. Do not allow the privilege to carry a concealed handgun
give you a false sense of security or empowerment. Let law
enforcement officers do their job. If you want to be a Good
Samaritan, call the police.


How do I know what started it, how do I know that he didn't make a racial slur. I Don't

Blackwater OPS
April 24, 2006, 10:17 PM
Thats some crazy case law you have got there in Ohio, since you do not appear to need intent in order to commit a crime. I would like to see the case/example where a person was convicted under those circumstances. BTW CCTV camera feeds in Vegas to not go unwatched for very long, I am certain the police were on the way.

A defendant, who claims he used deadly force to protect
another, has to prove that he reasonably and honestly believed that
the person he protected was in immediate danger of serious bodily
harm or death and that deadly force was the only way to protect the
person from that danger.

This was the case, 911 would not have saved the guy from the injuries he received nor the risk of death.

garryc
April 24, 2006, 11:25 PM
The state of the criminal justice system in Ohio is rather dismal. And I work for the system as a corrections officer.

I think it goes something like this;

Bill (prosecutor) meets bob (defense attorney) at the local country club. As they are getting smashed ( So they can get pulled over in their cars later and prove they are impervious to the law), Bill says to Bob, " Hey Bob, I really need a conviction in this case for my political carrier. You know if you scratch my back I'll scratch yours."
Bob says, " OK Bill, but let me bleed this stooge dry first and then I'll get him to plea to a slightly lesser charge. By the way, when you move up the ladder you'll need someone you can trust ( read that as conspired with) to fill in behind you in public office. By the way, ask the judge to make some meaningless mistakes so we can appeal and bleed his family dry too."
Bill says, " We can do that again. By the way, do you have that little "Campaign Contribution" for me?"

I think it goes like that

DNK
April 24, 2006, 11:53 PM
I watched the video a few days ago and posted the same kinds of questions. Baba Louie shed some light with the actual Nevada statute, which seems to be considerably different than Ohio's law (in a good way). Your results may vary by state. Here's the thread if interested.

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=208703

nefshooter
April 25, 2006, 07:37 AM
Thats what this world is turning into if he or anyone would have used deadly force you know what would have happened "He was just a young boy (girl) in with the wrong crowd he didn't have to shoot him" I'm so tired of the BS today a person getting the crap beat ot of him can't defend themselves today. You may get out of the criminal suit but its the civil ones that burn you. I read a story in a mag of a 80+ yr old man who shot a guy breaking in his home killed him:) it cost the man over 10 grand in the civil case when the guys family filled wrongful death charges on him. Thats why i stay home plus gas is to dang high to go anywhere!

garryc
April 25, 2006, 08:09 AM
it cost the man over 10 grand in the civil case when the guys family filled wrongful death charges on him.

If it only cost him 10 G's then he won the case. Of course it was a loose loose situation. He may have been able to go against the family for wrongfully sueing him but likely even if he had won he would not have been able to collect. I think the attorney should have to pay him.

Wisby
April 25, 2006, 08:26 AM
I would wish I wasn't armed... :mad:

Then I would Yell stop or I'll shoot and pray everyone stopped. If they didn't and came at me i'd aim low and make sure I emptied my clip... After that I'd have to take my beating with the other Guy if it didn't stop em... Or get killed by them.

threegun
April 25, 2006, 10:30 AM
That guy deserves some credit for walking away from a beating like that though.

Either that or those guys hit like girls.

Monday morning quarterbacking says I would command them to stop or get shot. If they didn't I would shoot the biggest threat that I could safely hit without hurting (even more) the good guy. If they turned on me the first few would be leaking profusely prior to punching on me. Once my gun was empty my cold steel tanto voyager would disembowel anyone within range. Unless of course I was KO'ed or killed.

Correct me if I'm wrong but police cannot use anything you say against you in court until you have been marandized. If this is correct then you are free to talk to police up and until they marandize you. They can't use anything before that against you.

Blackwater OPS
April 25, 2006, 11:21 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong but police cannot use anything you say against you in court until you have been marandized. If this is correct then you are free to talk to police up and until they marandize you. They can't use anything before that against you.

That is NOT correct. I am not going to give you legal advice though, I will leave that to someone else.

Capt Charlie
April 25, 2006, 12:14 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong but police cannot use anything you say against you in court until you have been marandized. If this is correct then you are free to talk to police up and until they marandize you. They can't use anything before that against you.
Nope. Miranda only applies when police ask you specific questions about your involvement in an incident. If you volunteer anything, it's considered spontaneous confession, and it's fully admissible in court.

If I ask you, "did you shoot him?", before Miranda, your "yes" would be thrown out of court.

But if I ask the crowd in general, "who shot him?", and you pipe up with a "I did", or I ask you a general question like "what happened?", and you answer "I shot him", that is fully admissible.

The truth is that most cops will delay Miranda and direct questioning as long as they can, in hopes that suspects will say something stupid on their own.

Prior to video recording equipment in cruisers, I caught two burglary suspects and placed both in the back of my cruiser. Then I left them alone, and sure enough, they both yaked back & forth to get their stories straight. What they didn't know was that I left a micro-cassette recorder running on the front seat ;) . It caught everything, and it fried both of them in court. Both Miranda and expectation of privacy objections were brought up by the defense, and both were denied by the judge.

mvpel
April 25, 2006, 12:30 PM
How do I know what started it, how do I know that he didn't make a racial slur. I Don't

Is a racial slur deserving of a death penalty?

That warning in Ohio was probably penned by the viciously anti-gun police chiefs and prosecutors who fought tooth and nail against the passage of Ohio's concealed carry licensing law.

However, it is indeed something that should be kept in mind no matter what state you're in - for example, an undercover cop attempting to arrest a violently-resisting prostitute. The various incidents of New York City cops being shot to death by their colleagues is a very clear illustration of the risks.

The British Soldier
April 25, 2006, 01:18 PM
I would not have engaged with a concealled pistol; the rules of engagement would appear to be clear that the guy receiving a kicking was on going to die from it and that lethal force, therefore, would be unjustified.

Anyone who claims that they would engage them, apart from being gung ho, would probably end up behind bars - how would you justify it?

westphoenix
April 25, 2006, 02:48 PM
People have died from one punch to the head or neck.
6 people surrounding someone and taking turns punching and kicking them and using weapons (belts or chains) could easily result in serious bodily harm (which IMO it did) and/or death. They could have paralyzed this man or left him with internal bleeding/damaged organs. What if the man lost eye during this attack? The actions of the attackers was life threatening (at the least serious bodily harm) and justifies deadly force IMO.

I can't say whether I would shoot or not. It would be my gut feeling at the time. But I can say when I watch the video I got very angry and wondered if the victim would be killed. I would have probably given one warning and starting shooting. Ill take my chances in court and hope my fellow law-abiding citizens understand the situation. The fact that it was video taped would only help the shooters case IMO. If I were on a jury all of the persons involved in the attack would get the maximum sentence. If it were up to me they would get the death penalty. Our society does not need violent criminals like this (in prison or on the streets). These "people" make me :barf:

DNK
April 25, 2006, 03:00 PM
Soldier, I think "the rules of engagement would appear to be clear that the guy receiving a kicking was on [not] going to die from it and that lethal force, therefore, would be unjustified" is assuming quite a bit. In hindsight it might appear that, because the guy walked away from it (with a broken collar bone and jaw), deadly force wasn't applied against him. I would say that guy's guardian angel was working overtime. One hard kick in the throat, temple or behind the ear and the guy could easily have suffered brain damage or death. If you're shot and don't die, was that an absence of deadly force?

That being said I think there are a lot of other variables here. Nevada law has a lot to say about justifiable homicide including:

NRS 200.200 Killing in self-defense. If a person kills another in self-defense, it must appear that:

1. The danger was so urgent and pressing that, in order to save his own life, or to prevent his receiving great bodily harm, the killing of the other was absolutely necessary; and

2. The person killed was the assailant, or that the slayer had really, and in good faith, endeavored to decline any further struggle before the mortal blow was given.

Perception and reasonableness are also both important here (as always). So is accuracy, shooting one of the punks who's just watching or one who punched and ran will probably land you in the pokey. Bottom line is that you have to be able to justify your actions, to a jury if necessary.

I think these kind of real world scenarios are great because they make the law abiding owners think about their engagement parameters of who what, when, where, why and how. Much like the decision to eject from an aircraft, you want to have all these parameters figured out before hand and not waste precious seconds thinking should I or shouldn't I, as you're packing it in. As long as people know what their parameters are for using their weapon, that's the important thing and that's a personal decision.

This story is still unfolding and these thugs are accused of even more crimes. The LV RJ reported:

-Beating, robbery of woman at a Wal-Mart in North LV 2 hrs prior to MGM attack. Beating, robbery of man at a Travelodge 1/2 hr after MGM attack

-24 hrs later, four attacks around Vegas Dr. and Tenaya Wy. Robbery of Green Valley Grocery - 7951 Vegas Dr., nearby beating, robbery of a couple in Pioneer Park, and a shooting there.

I guess one of them either already had or acquired a gun somewhere along the line. Maybe a responsible CCW holder in any of these incidents could've stopped one or more of these crimes, maybe not.

threegun
April 25, 2006, 05:13 PM
Thanks for the correction about Miranda guys.

The British Soldier,

As for going to jail for saving someone from eminent death or great bodily injury................in Florida I wouldn't go anywhere. I am not gung ho far from it. I just cannot turn tail and allow a fellow American get beaten like a dog. Every one of them scumbags deserved to be shot but if they stopped at my command they would go free. My only concern is to get them to stop killing a fellow American. If it was you getting beaten.....enough said. Any reasonable person would conclude that that type of beating constitutes great bodily injury and could cause death.

People have died from one punch to the head or neck.


Just down the road from my job a kid was killed with a single punch to the temple.

mvpel
April 25, 2006, 09:58 PM
Soldier, I think "the rules of engagement would appear to be clear that the guy receiving a kicking was on [not] going to die from it and that lethal force, therefore, would be unjustified" is assuming quite a bit. In hindsight it might appear that, because the guy walked away from it (with a broken collar bone and jaw), deadly force wasn't applied against him.

Deadly Force/Lethal Force: that degree of force which a reasonable and prudent person would consider capable of causing death or grave bodily harm.

A broken collar bone and a broken jaw is grave bodily harm. Deadly force was used against the victim here.

nbk2000
April 26, 2006, 03:50 AM
Was this attack random, based on the victim being alone, or was it aimed at someone who had just won a lot of money?

Anyways, if I had been there and was armed with a pistol, I may have fired off a couple of rounds in the air ONLY once the 'victim' fell down. At that point, he's obviously defenseless, and I'd be justified in intervening.

(If he's still standing, then he might get away on his own, or the crowd might disperse.)

But that doesn't mean I'd hang around either. I'm getting the hell away from there, because I wouldn't trust the law to not turn against me, even if what I did was right.

If I didn't have a gun, then I'm not going to risk getting myself killed. Instead, I'd go to the nearest phone, call 911, and leave (after wiping the phone down). Again, I don't trust the law to do the right thing.

We won't mention anything about race, since that'd be derogatory, but I would fell confidant in stating that the race of the victims in all the attacks was NOT that of the tribe that attacked them.

I use the word 'Tribe', since 'Gang' implies at least some command structure, which I highly doubt this group had.

A 'tribe', though, is:


Two (2) or more groups that had common hunting grounds or other common attributes such as language.


SOURCE (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&defl=en&q=define:tribe&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title)

Sounds pretty bang-on to me. :)

westphoenix
April 26, 2006, 10:39 AM
What's up with the warning shot talk?
What happened to don't pull your gun unless you plan to shoot to kill?
Since when is shooting a gun up in the air in a major city an acceptable solution?
It is now a felony to shoot a firearm up in the air in Phoenix.
I don't see why this wouldn't be true in many other US cities.
Know your background and what you are shooting at before you shoot.
I believe firing a shot into the air and leaving has just as much chance at making things worse as making them better.
Shooting a warning shot can say you didn't feel the need for deadly force, so why did you introduce the gun to the situation?
Shoot the attackers or don't shoot at all.

UniversalFrost
April 26, 2006, 11:53 AM
I agree that shooting into the air (albeit a warning shot) is simply the wrong thing to do and could hurt an innocent bystander downrange inadvertantly. Instead, I would call 911 first then get within range of the perps. and while having my weapon drawn yell that I have a weapon and am willing to use it, demand in a forceful voice for them to cease and decist and to put thier hand in the air. At that point if they do not oblige then I would "wing" whomever approaches myslef or the victim. If they continue aproaching/beating them I would use deadly force if I felt threatened and let god sort em' out.

I actually had to do this once when I was 18. I had stopped by a country gas station one morning during pheasant season in South Dakota to get some snacks before the hunt. While I was getting out of my truck I noticed through the window of the store a couple of teenagers jumping over the counter and the clerk was not visible. The teenagers started to run out the front door and towards me, but luckinly enough I grabbed my shotgun off the gun rack behind me and pumped it. That stopped them in their tracks, little did they know it was unloaded (against the law in SD to carry a loaded shotgun in a vehicle). I told them to hit the ground and keep thier hands out. They did as they were told and while they were doing this I was fishing for some shells in my front seat. I managed to load the gun (they looked suprised when I chambered a round) and I flipped my cell phone out and called the sherrifs office. The family of the kids tried to sue me later, but it was thrown out as a frivolous lawsuit and they are still in prison for armed robbery, battery, and weapons charges (one of the kids had a .38 revolver under his shirt that he used in the hold up). If they had decided to use the gun I would have been sol until I could have gotten my shotgun loaded, after that a 12 gauge can't miss at less then 10 feet and they would have been pushing up daisies at the cemetary.

mvpel
April 26, 2006, 03:57 PM
Was this attack random, based on the victim being alone, or was it aimed at someone who had just won a lot of money?

This attack was, in fact, random - it was part of a string of six violent assaults and robberies (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1622051/posts) committed by this group of individuals against several victims over the course of two days in Las Vegas.

As pieced together, here is the rampage?s timeline:

1. Saturday April 22 at 1:00am ? A Walmart manager is beaten in the store?s parking lot and a female customer is beaten and robbed in the same parking lot for trying to call the police.

2. By 2:30am the gang beats and robs a 23 year old maintenance worker outside the MGM Grand Hotel (the victim suffered a broken jaw and collarbone)

3. By 3:00am an innocent tourist is beaten and robbed outside a nearby Travelodge motel.

4. Sunday April 23 at 2:30am the gang ransacked a Las Vegas grocery store, beat a customer and threatened to kill the store?s clerk.

5. At 3:00am the gang beat and robbed an innocent couple at a nearby park.

6. Within minutes of that, a man was shot in the same park.
The reason nobody's heard about it is because the New York Times has apparently been too busy running dozens of stories about an alleged rape of a stripper, and Dick Cheney's structured retirement compensation payments from Halliburton.

I finally steeled myself and watched the video, and anyone who says that brutal attack does not rise to the level of deadly force worthy of deadly defensive force has their head so far up their a-- they ought to be able to see out their throat.

The guy was sucker punched at the outset, for God's sake, and he was being swarmed! I could see emptying a magazine or two in that situation if the first couple of COM hits didn't dissuade the rest of the attackers, and in Nevada they allow standard-capacity mags.

2400
April 26, 2006, 11:14 PM
My first thought was a warning shot to try and scatter the gang.
I believe I would fire a few shots in the air
If they didn't and came at me i'd aim low and make sure I emptied my clip...
Instead, I would call 911 first then get within range of the perps. and while having my weapon drawn yell that I have a weapon and am willing to use it, demand in a forceful voice for them to cease and decist and to put thier hand in the air. At that point if they do not oblige then I would "wing" whomever approaches myslef or the victim. If they continue aproaching/beating them I would use deadly force if I felt threatened and let god sort em' out.

"shots in the air", "Warning shot", "aim low", "Wing them"? WTFO?:confused:
If you're going to shoot, shoot to stop the threat!

Deadly force. Hit the first guy you have a clean shot at and hope the rest scatter. If they don't well, hopefully you took that shot from behind some cover and you have few extra mags.

If you feel threatened enough to pull a weapon, call 911, then use it to stop the threat.

nbk2000
April 29, 2006, 05:04 AM
"shots in the air", "Warning shot", "aim low", "Wing them"? WTFO? :confused:
If you're going to shoot, shoot to stop the threat!


(and everyone else advocating "Shoot 'em!")

Why the bloodlust?

If firing a warning shot stops the attack, then the attack has been stopped.

Yes, they may continue on elsewhere, but that's what we have police for, and they could just as easily count themselves lucky and re-think their behaviour and stop.

Twice I've had occassions (both gun-armed robbery attempts) where lethal force would have been legally permitted. One time I exercised the option (tried to, anyways), and once I did not.

The last time, I disarmed the attacker and could have killed him with his own gun, and been perfectly within the law to do so, but the threat was over and vengenance is unworthy.

I can only speak for myself in that, unless myself or someone I feel a loyalty to is threatened, it's not my fight. That I might help a stranger is such a situation is dependant on many factors, none of which include risking a murder charge or civil suit.

To randomly kill someone, as firing into a crowd would be, is morally dispicable. :mad:

If you fired a warning shot, and everyone but one or two people ran, then I could see shooting those who were so involved in their attack as to not stop. THESE people would be the 'clear and present' threat that would have to be killed.

Those who ran certainly deserved to be punished for such outrageous behaviour, but summary execution is far out of proportion to the crime.

Punishment of crimes is the right of the courts and laws which we, as a civilized society, are obligated to obey. To ignore laws when they don't fit our needs is to say that your opinion is more important than the good of the social order which you are a member of.

When you ignore the laws of society, you revert to tribalism, where those not of your tribe are fair game for any outrage you may visit upon them.

+++++++++++++++++

BTW, this is in response to a person who implied very heavily (by PM) that my use of the word 'Tribe' was a codeword for 'Gang of Nig_gers'.

Read into it whatever you want, but I used it in the sense of the definition which I supplied, which I think MORE than appropriate for the situation.

Freedom of speech is useless if you self-censor your thoughts before you even utter them. That was the warning of Orwell's 1984, and the threat of liberal PC speech-crime.

Hopefully no one here should be made to feel that the use of certain words are 'inappropriate', simply because someone/somewhere, may feel that they are offended by it.

On this board (or any other), the only people who's opinions matter about what is or is not permissible are those of the admin and moderators. If they allow it, then it's within the law established by the social order of which we are all members of (here), thus not the place of anyone else to object to, since you can huff and puff 'till you're blue in the face but can't do a thing about it.

westphoenix
April 30, 2006, 03:30 AM
:rolleyes:
I'm sure if you or a member of your family was being beaten you would want someone to shoot the attackers. But maybe not, maybe you would rather drive them to get steel plates put in their mouth.

M14fan
April 30, 2006, 11:20 AM
I cannot simply be a bystander and watch something like this take place. Kind of reminds me of the trucker in California who got dragged from his truck and his head smashed with a block. My primary piece is capable of stop-zone hits 3-4" rapid fire out to 25 yards and I always carry several back-up mags. Generally speaking, I have 40rds at my disposal. Never fire a warning shot! I may yell and say I've called the police but once the weapon is produced, I am done talking.

Before you call me overly paranoid (40rds?) I have been caught in a firefight in the past where a man with a single-action revolver took on a shotgun and rifle wielding mob (1shotgun, 1rifle) and won. There were many more people involved but fortunately only those two with weapons. The outcome would have been different had there been more weapons. I make an effort to never find myself in that situation again.

nbk2000
April 30, 2006, 04:18 PM
I'm sure if you or a member of your family was being beaten you would want someone to shoot the attackers.


I'd want the attack stopped ASAP. If firing a shot in the air accomplishes that, that's fine with me.

Yahoo's who'd fire indiscriminately into a crowd are the type who'd not care who they're killing, as long as they're killing. Attacker or victim, both are squishy bags of pink goo to be popped in the eyes of a trigger-happy nut.

Remember, the victim here got up and walked away under his own power.

Now, lets say for a moment that one of the "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" crowd came along and started shooting as soon as the victim went down (hopefully waited!). Bodies are falling on top of him as the dead and wounded crumple under a hail of COM fire.

As the victim struggles up on his feet to flee from someone busting crazy mad caps, he is also shot, as a Terminator with his CCW makes sure there's no surviving goblins by shooting anything that moves...to stop the threat, naturally.

:rolleyes:

Or you just accidently kill the victim while only wounding the scum who were attacking him.

Now, do you think "I was only trying to help!" is going to be any defense against a manslaughter or murder charge? I don't think so. Your claim to good samaritan immunity ends when it's YOU who killed the innocent.

When victim and attacker are in such close proximity, it'd be reckless in the extreme to fire, especially from a distance, since you can't predict the actions of the victim. He might stay down, or jump up in the middle of things and get shot.

And why are you waiting so damn long to intervene?

He was getting pounded a lot longer standing up than lying down.

How are you going to shot the attackers when the victim is in the middle of them? You're 10-ring marksmanship skills, I'm assuming? On multiple moving targets in a circle around a no-hit target, at night?

Damn! You must have one hell of range to have practiced that scenario to perfection! I'm jealous.

Of course, if you fired a warning shot and the group scatters, that'd get them clear of the victim, giving you clear shots. But then you're no longer justified in shooting because the threat is over, are you?

Ah...THAT'S why you don't want to use a warning shot...because you know they'd scatter and you wouldn't have a legal excuse to fulfill your fantasies of Old West justice.

As I once heard somewhere:


Guns don't scare me.

Fools with guns terrify me.


Some of you people terrify me.

mvpel
April 30, 2006, 08:40 PM
NBK, you make up all sorts of scenarios and then weave them in to your own fantasy of how the situation would play out, and then use it to tar people who would have been willing to intervene to protect this guy from great bodily harm.

Who said anything about "busting crazy mad caps?" Who said anything about a "hail" of fire? Who said anything about firing indiscriminately into a crowd? Who said anything about "from a distance?" Who said anything about taking clear shots after the attackers scattered? Nobody except you, Richard.

When people don't lay out every single contingency and their precise response to each one, it is assumed that everyone reading the thread is not so stupid to think that none of those contingencies are taken into consideration by the poster.

When the victim was surrounded and being kicked by a crowd of people, did it look like, in that instant, that he would walk away under his own power? A guy here in New Hampshire died a day after one single punch in the face, did you hear about that? Apparently not.

nbk2000
May 1, 2006, 03:28 AM
WARNING

Postings by NBK have been found by the State of California to contain high levels of Sarcasm, Satire, Hyperbole, and Ridicule.

Acute exposure may cause:


Immediate increase in blood pressure levels, caused by shock or anger.
Urge to click on links provided by, or obtain articles cited by, NBK, in attempt to disprove statements made by him.
Intense Googling to relieve "self-doubt of facts" itch, caused by exposure to NBK.
Immediate confusion of reality, resulting in mistaking NBK for someone called "Richard". :D


Chronic exposure may cause symptoms including (but not limited to):


Ego deflation
Self-examination
Relief of Testestorone Poisoning
Reduction of lead in the Enviroment


In case of adverse reaction from exposure to NBK, apply first-aid measures as follow:


Immediately remove yourself from the area to prevent further exposure
Consume large quantities of alcohol, preferably in the form of beer, to prevent change of mental state.
Watch Deer Hunter and Apocalypse Now to restore testosterone levels
Proceed to nearest firing range to replenish depleted blood-lead levels.



==============================================================================

Everyone who posts their opinions here knows (or should, anyways) that they're subject to being critiqued and criticized, myself included.


Who said anything about "busting crazy mad caps?" Who said anything about a "hail" of fire? Who said anything about firing indiscriminately into a crowd? Who said anything about "from a distance?" Who said anything about taking clear shots after the attackers scattered? Nobody except you, Richard.


You answered your own questions, earlier in this thread. :)


...he was being swarmed! I could see emptying a magazine or two in that situation if the first couple of COM hits didn't dissuade the rest of the attackers.


COM hits on who? Those not in the 'swarm' of bodies? Wouldn't that mean shooting clear shots after the attackers scattered? Or are you shooting indiscrimately into a crowd?

Oh...I see...forgive me...taking aim at each individual attacker to ensure a COM hit means that you are DISCRIMINATELY (AKA selectively) targeting them, not indiscrimately firing into a mass of bodies. My apologies for the confusion on my part.

And doesn't emptying 'a magazine or two' count as 'busting crazy mad caps' (in da 'hood, of course), with the attendant 'hail of lead'? I believe it does.

And unless you're saying you'd walk in amoungst a 'swarm' (your words), then you would be shooting from a distance, correct? Or are you saying you've got such clankers that you'd roll in like the One Man Calvary to the Rescue and deal 'em justice left/right/front/and center?

I don't think that'd be tactically correct, but it's your funeral...


A guy here in New Hampshire died a day after one single punch in the face, did you hear about that? Apparently not.


I've heard of a guy getting hit by lightning 9 times and living. So what's your point?

Am I prescient, able to devine the future course of events, doomed to forever assume the worst? That every schoolyard scrap or bar room brawl is going to result in a corpse?

I can only react to a situation based on experiences I have had in the past, none of which include seeing someone get killed by a single punch. But I have seen plenty of people get the bejesus living snot beat of them and walk away from it (albeit slowly).

I've seen a lot more people get burned, shot, stabbed, and maimed..and SURVIVE!...then I've seen dying from it. So I'm of the belief that humans are made of some pretty sturdy stuff that'll survive anything short of Trains and large quantities of High Explosives.

Now here's a question for you, Winston:

Why did they stop?

Because his head had been squashed like a grape with brains oozing out his shattered skull?

No. So it wasn't the quenching of a bloodlust.

Because a CCW came along, firing his gun into the air or their bodies?

No, so it wasn't John Wayne either.

Since neither one of these happened, we know what DIDN'T stop them.

So what did?

westphoenix
May 1, 2006, 01:30 PM
:rolleyes:

mvpel
May 2, 2006, 10:42 AM
I usally carry 24 rounds on my person, one 10+1 and one 13 spare.

To empty a magazine, that would require 11 shots. I counted quite a few more than 11 attackers there, and even the vaunted .45 doesn't guarantee a one-shot stop.

You took one sentence coming out of my outrage over the video and built it into a full-on tactical scenario, here. Just because I didn't sit there for two hours typing out an explanation of exactly how or under what circumstances I might wind up emptying a mag in defending someone from a large number of violent attackers, you assumed the worst, and ascribed the worst possible motives and mindsets to me, just assuming I don't understand the risks and possible complications, command voice, etc.

In that video, I saw a man's life at risk. Just because it didn't turn out that way, and all you saw was a "schoolyard scrap" or whatever the hell you're talking about, wouldn't have changed my perception of the incident in that moment had I been there.

I was brought up that it's usually a crime to lay a hand on someone else in anger, and I just can't concieve of why people minimize and dismiss physical violence by throwing around bullsh*t terms like "schoolyard scrap."

nbk2000
May 2, 2006, 10:01 PM
Since some people can't read between the lines, or feel a need to state that the Sun rises in the East, I'll state it clearly that:

YES, BEING ATTACKED BY A CROWD CAN RESULT IN DEATH.

So now that I've stated the obvious,I'd still like an answer from you, Winston, as to why the crowd DID NOT KILL.

It certainly wasn't lack of numbers, nor opportunity.

I'm not asking you to be a mind-reader, but to share your opinion on why they didn't kill this fellow when they had a chance to.

If you don't want people to misunderstand your thoughts and intentions, expend more than one sentences worth of original effort, rather than a bunch of quotes from other sources that say nothing of YOUR intentions, into making them clear.

Did I call this a "Schoolyard Scrap" or some other bullsh*t incident? No.

I've referred to it as "Attack"

My comment on schoolyards and bar-rooms was in response to your referring to freak incident where someone died after being punched.

To quote you:


...you assumed the worst, and ascribed the worst possible motives and mindsets to me, just assuming I don't understand the risks and possible complications.


Are you not doing the same?

Any hit to the head has the chance of fatal injury, DUH!, but that's so rare compared to the number of fights that occur in schools and bars where someone gets hit in the head that's it's negligible.

Again, I've seen people take more injury than a single punch and walk away from it, so I'll not be assuming everyone who is attacked, even by a crowd, is automatically going to die and react as such.

Just a couple of months ago, someone attacked my boss at work with the stated intention of murdering him.

I hit the man a minimum of three times in the skull, edgewise, with a sharpened 14" mower blade with full swings, after repeated blows elsewhere failed to deter.

Blood everywhere, but the man continued the attack and fled shortly thereafter. He has yet to be caught.

Maybe they were glancing blows, maybe I was sub-conciously restraining myself from murdering another human being, who knows. All I know is that people can take a lot of punishment without dying.

And, having watched the video repeatedly, I counted seven attackers (at any one time), only a couple of whom were repeatedly striking him. Half the crowd never touched him, and the majority of the rest only made one or two hits before running away.

OBVIOUSLY NECCESSARY DISCLAIMER: This doesn't excuse their behavior.

"Wilding" seems a better discription of this attack than a premeditated (or even spontaneous) robbery, even if money/valuables were taken.

Or is this term too racially loaded for the PC police in this thread?

And do you think that you'd have to fire more than 11 rounds to stop the attack? You say:


To empty a magazine, that would require 11 shots. I counted quite a few more than 11 attackers there, and even the vaunted .45 doesn't guarantee a one-shot stop.


So are you saying you'd have to shoot more than 11 attackers and the .45 is inadequate, since it doesn't guarantee one-shot stops? Or are you saying you wouldn't have enough ammo to fire a "Hail of Lead" at them?

Do you think you'd have to fire more than a single magazine worth, or even more than ONE shot, to scatter the crowd?

If a single shot in the air will stop the attack, with no wounded 'victim' or dead 'victim' families to cry and get media sympathy, than why fire at them and risk getting yourself in a legal mess? Or are you going to claim 'I had to stop 'em.' as a defense?

2400
May 3, 2006, 03:01 PM
Originally Posted by 2400
"shots in the air", "Warning shot", "aim low", "Wing them"? WTFO?
If you're going to shoot, shoot to stop the threat!

Quote:
(and everyone else advocating "Shoot 'em!")

Why the bloodlust?

If firing a warning shot stops the attack, then the attack has been stopped.

Bloodlust, advocating shooting??
I said and I quote "If you're going to shoot, shoot to stop the threat!". Where do you see me advocating "bloodlust"?
Is it legal to "fire a warning shot" in your state? Could you defend it in court? Are you going to accept the responsibility of where the "warning shot" winds up, if you hit someone or something downrange?

nbk2000
May 4, 2006, 11:19 PM
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=209818