PDA

View Full Version : Justified to Shoot?


Tabsr
July 16, 2008, 08:46 PM
Same situation, this justified to defend your family?

http://www.startribune.com/local/25472764.html?location_refer=Local%20+%20Metro

AZ Med18
July 16, 2008, 08:57 PM
Depends on state.

In AZ

You may shoot because of the molestation

and also because of the significant number of bad guys.

pax
July 21, 2008, 02:06 AM
Tabsr ~

Yes. See www.corneredcat.com/Legal/AOJ.aspx for the principles involved.

pax

pax
July 21, 2008, 02:18 AM
I have just deleted a couple of off-topic posts. If you wonder why, please go take a look at Bud Helms' comments in the following thread: http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=302789

Stick to the topic, please.

pax

rampage841512
July 21, 2008, 05:28 AM
Yes, for what they were trying to do to the girl and for what they did to the father. Very much justified.

Alleykat
July 21, 2008, 08:58 AM
Seems to me that, of course, the application of lethal force was called for. I know for sure, that, if I'm attacked as was the victim in this case, and I have the ability to stop the attack by using my concealed firearm, I'll do my best to do just that.

(Sure hope that's not construed as "chest thumping"!:))

Erik
July 21, 2008, 01:06 PM
"Justified to Shoot? - Yes.

"Same situation, this justified to defend your family?" - And yes, again.

BillCA
July 21, 2008, 01:30 PM
That many young men molesting or attempting to sexually assault my daughter would certainly be justifiable grounds for shooting. That many physically assaulting my son would also be justified. One of the perps looked like he weighed in over 280 pounds.

Most states have statutes on the books that makes ganging up on a single victim a felony. Where a fist-fight between two men might only be a misdemeanor, two (or more) against one usually changes the charges, especially if the single victim is seriously injured.

These group-attacks have been increasing in frequency and in violence in the last few years. It reminds me of a pack of wild dogs. One member alone is usually afraid, but in a pack they're insanely viscious.

Hard Ball
July 21, 2008, 01:38 PM
"whose husband was severely beaten"

Clearly grave bodily harm. Unprovoked attack by a group. Deadly force was clearly justified.

MisterWilson
July 21, 2008, 01:38 PM
AZ Med nailed it.

Groping your daughter is molestation and equal to rape as far as the step you may take to stop it.

Combine that with a large disparity of force and you've got your green light.

Furthermore, the law generally looks more favorably at older folks so if you're a man in your 40's that's another plus.

That being said, if he'd shot them before things got ugly, I have my doubts as to whether he would have beaten the ride.

anythingshiny
July 21, 2008, 01:41 PM
This is a tough one..i had posted up on a THR poll.

I believe CC is illegal at the park and he obviously didnt make it to his car. Without knowing the details of the 'molestation' physical, verbal or other, I'd have to say that IF I was armed and IF my daughter were being molested by 1 or 8 does not matter, it would be a very tense situation.

I'd like to think I'd have a few options to retreat or de-escalate..but I'm thinking nope. I'm protecting my family and self with everything I have at my disposal.

Keltyke
July 21, 2008, 01:44 PM
Yes!

PROTECTION OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY ACT

The stated intent of the legislation is to codify the common law castle doctrine, which recognizes that a person’s home is his castle, and to extend the doctrine to include an occupied vehicle and the person’s place of business. This bill authorizes the lawful use of deadly force under certain circumstances against an intruder or attacker in a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle. The bill provides that there is no duty to retreat if (1) the person is in a place where he has a right to be, including the person’s place of business, (2) the person is not engaged in an unlawful activity, and (3) the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent death, great bodily injury, or the commission of a violent crime. A person who lawfully uses deadly force is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action, unless the person against whom deadly force was used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his official duties and he identifies himself in accordance with applicable law or the person using deadly force knows or reasonably should have known the person is a law enforcement officer.

H.4301 (R412) was signed by the Governor on June 9, 2006.

#20fan
July 21, 2008, 01:53 PM
Considering that a person can use equal or slightly greater force to defend his/herself, the disparity of force in this attack, I believe that use of a deadly weapon would be justified.
However as a lone defender I would worry about being disarmed by a large group of attackers.
To me it may be justified and legal, but would be a tough call to make.

Keltyke
July 21, 2008, 02:02 PM
To me it may be justified and legal, but would be a tough call to make.

Not for me. 8 thugs attempting to rape a young girl? I'm gonna draw and shoot, nearest one first. I may go down, but it'll be with an empty gun and I'll for sure take some of the scum with me.

threegun
July 21, 2008, 02:09 PM
Not just yes but heck yes.

There is no hesitation here for me. If my child was being molested and the bad guys refused to stop at my command there would be no further warning. If any one of them approached me they would be engaged.

As for it being illegal to have a gun on park grounds even with a CWP...........oh well. I take my punishment knowing that I saved my daughter and myself from harm. I would die for my kids so jail is nothing.

#20fan
July 21, 2008, 02:20 PM
I didn't say I wouldn't, just said it would be a tough call.
The father in this attack did protect his daughter without a deadly weapon.
He is lucky to be alive, but still...

Spade Cooley
July 21, 2008, 02:43 PM
When you get jumped by a group you are justfied, period. Shoot the SOBS.

threegun
July 21, 2008, 02:45 PM
With or without a weapon my daughter is getting my help until I am physically unable to continue.

#20fan
July 21, 2008, 03:01 PM
With or without a weapon my daughter is getting my help until I am physically unable to continue.

Exactly, just as the father did in this attack.
He was able to protect his family with no one getting shot and without presenting the BGs with the tool to kill him and his family outright.
Still think it would have been justified though.

Keltyke
July 21, 2008, 03:22 PM
He was able to protect his family with no one getting shot and without presenting the BGs with the tool to kill him and his family outright.

I don't know how far the molestation went. He got beaten to a pulp and his daughters and wife were traumatized by watching, almost helpless, while it happened. That's not much protection to me. Some of you are so sure he'd have come off the loser if he'd drawn a gun. I disagree. They MIGHT have got to him, but I'm betting the minute he drops one, the rest will take off running. Remember, these punks wanted an "easy" rape, not an armed confrontation with a mad father. If they'd had guns, they would have used them when they went after the father. They attacked him because he didn't show any weapon to prevent it.

"We'll all charge him together, he can't get all eight of us."
"OK, big mouth, YOU get it first! Make your move."

BTW, in this situation, I don't believe a warning ("Stop or I'll shoot!") is necessary, pull your piece and start blasting.

threegun
July 21, 2008, 03:32 PM
He was able to protect his family with no one getting shot and without presenting the BGs with the tool to kill him and his family outright.


Yes he was able to save his daughter (his goal) but now he may die or have permanent injury. They already had the tools to kill (he was attacked with them) so giving them another tool to kill is moot. A firearm would have given him the ability to stop the attack without getting hurt.

He was acting on his fatherly instincts. If he had done the same (unarmed) to save a stranger I would admire his bravado and point out his lack of brains. It is foolish to engage multiple large men unarmed unless you are throwing yourself to the crocodile to save your loved one.

#20fan
July 21, 2008, 03:46 PM
Some of you are so sure he'd have come off the loser if he'd drawn a gun.

I think it's only been me so far.....and was just a thought.

Remember, these punks wanted an "easy" rape, not an armed confrontation with a mad father.

I don't know about the "easy rape" part since Dad, Mom, and siblings(?) were there. I am with you that the BGs were not looking for an armed confrontation with Dad, cowards never are.

Anyway, we are dealing in what-ifs, maybes, and suppositions.
Was just throwing some out there.

Keltyke
July 21, 2008, 04:54 PM
Anyway, we are dealing in what-ifs, maybes, and suppositions.
Was just throwing some out there.

Agreed. No plan survives the first engagement.

threegun
July 21, 2008, 05:00 PM
Anyway, we are dealing in what-ifs, maybes, and suppositions.
Was just throwing some out there.


gotcha

Brian Pfleuger
July 21, 2008, 05:32 PM
Yes, empty the gun. Also an interesting rebuttal of the "You don't need more than 6 (or 8 or 10) rounds argument.

Although, it always goes without saying: Many, many BG's will run at the sight of a gun, even when it is 8 to 1. So maybe a revolver or low cap. auto would be enough.

DMacLeod
July 21, 2008, 07:25 PM
Yes I think shooting would be justified. As far as the arguement of round count; After 1 or 2 had extra holes in them, I'd bet the rest would have scattered.

LightningJoe
July 21, 2008, 07:39 PM
Criminals are neither tough nor brave. Those are characteristics of good people. This is probably why handguns are so effective against criminals. Handguns rarely produce physical incapacitation, but they stop fights almost all the time even in the hands of untrained people.


So, capacity and caliber would matter a lot less than the size, physical appearance, muzzle blast, and accessability of the gun. Fear and demoralization are the source of the handgun's "stopping power." Otherwise, it rarely has any.


And yes, fire away in this situation. You are, I believe, "golden."

lt3131
July 21, 2008, 08:06 PM
Automatic draw and start shooting no doubt. This is the reason you have a chl, to protect you and your family. For those that have to think twice about shooting you shouldn't be packing.

RckyMtnHigh
July 21, 2008, 09:08 PM
There is no question in my mind, it is justifiable for a number of reasons already outlined. I have seen too many people go through the ER and ICU that have been beaten resulting in severe debility and even death.

Also agree it does give me pause about lower round count. This story coupled with a few other stories I have seen here and on THR recently.

FrontSight
July 21, 2008, 09:25 PM
This is exactly the kind of situation that proves that concealed carry is necessary...scum attack at any place, at any time. You think you are safe in a park with tons of people, but you are not, and these lowlives would certainly deserve getting shot....they almost killed a man who yelled at his child's molester...if that doesn't deserve a bullet in them then what does??

And HOW is this a misdemeanor?? "Gildersleeve was convicted in March 2008 of carrying a pistol without a permit in a public place, a misdemeanor."

Bigfatts
July 21, 2008, 09:28 PM
Absolutely justifiable, beyond question. Prevention of a forcible felony that may cause great bodily harm. The disparity of force was also enough. How much you want to bet that a couple of them would have run at the sight of a gun? Then the next one to make a forward motion towards me would have gotten some extra ventilation, a shot to the pelvis gets the point across and is instantly incapacitating. Who knows, maybe his screams of agony would have motivated the others to leave.

And as far as it being illegal to carry a gun where he was, oh well. A little jail time is a little price to pay for the health of my family (this is one of the reasons I am such an advocate of OC, then you would have had 8 guys on the ground screaming like little girls). You also have to look beyond the immediate physical health of a rape victim. They will be forever changed or at worst mentally destroyed depending on the person. Alot never recover.

Hook686
July 22, 2008, 12:41 AM
There is no doubt in my mind that situational awareness is the key to surviving in the jungle.

I am also keenly aware that a perpetrator willing to sacrafice his life to accomplish an objective is damn near impossible to defend against without weapons out and at the ready.

This cannot be done in our communities, so I figure best I can do is keep plenty of distance from everyone, and avoiud being iosolated.

Rifleman 173
July 22, 2008, 04:41 AM
Yep. Without a doubt, mob action in cases like this one begs that a father with a gun should have used it to defend his family and himself from these scumbags. If we thin out the criminal gene pool enough, do you think that we could hope that criminals might become a thing of the past? We can only hope so.

Also defines why we should all carry high capacity firearms with more than 10 cartridges. A 5 shot snub nosed revolver would not have had enough ammo in the gun to be effective for a realistic program of defense against 8 determined attackers.

threegun
July 22, 2008, 07:59 AM
A 5 shot snub nosed revolver would not have had enough ammo in the gun to be effective for a realistic program of defense against 8 determined attackers.

Agreed but it will be argued that none would have been "determined" after the first 5 took lead.

buzz_knox
July 22, 2008, 08:20 AM
Criminals are neither tough nor brave. Those are characteristics of good people. This is probably why handguns are so effective against criminals.

There are a lot of dead individuals, both LEO and non-LEO, who had the same idea.

Criminals are people, with as many different motivations for action as your average group. Some are cowards. Others are bullies. Others are looking at a third strike and want to kill witnesses to stay out of prison. Others don't care if they are alive or dead. Others may cut and run, but won't when they see that one of their pack is standing their ground.

If you rely on a criminal to be a coward, you are underestimating your opponent. That is one of the surest ways of achieving failure.

CPTMurdoc30
July 22, 2008, 09:15 AM
The other story I read about this incadent said that the father started yelling at 2 of the thugs after they slapped his 12 yo daughter on the buttocks (That right there will get you shot by me quick fast and in a hurry I don't care what the law says). After yelling the two thugs called for backup and 6 more showed up. Why did he hang around. Retreat and call police I say first if they follow you to your car and start trying to enter the car then start shooting or start running them over.

It did no good to hang around and start a fight with 8 guys. If they jumped him then Latch on to the smallest one and try very hard to break every bone in his scrawny crack head body. By the time they get you off you more than likely have put a serious hurting on him.

I am not one to fist fight but touching my 12 year old daughter (Mine is 11 right now) is going to really **** me the hell off. Kick my azz all you want but prepair to die if you touch my wife or kids.

MLeake
July 22, 2008, 10:03 AM
It's PC to talk about bullies being inherently cowardly, and suffering from self-esteem issues.

However, it's not necessarily correct. Recent studies have shown that bullies often have highly elevated self-esteem.

And some of the monsters out there are very, very tough. In most packs, there will be at least one Alpha.

My sensei used to always tell us, when teaching weapon disarms, that in the real thing, you had to enter the conflict knowing that you would probably get cut, and you had to be ready to continue after being cut.

It's better tactics to assume the bad guys will fight, and will be competent, than to assume they will all flee in terror when you draw down. It's better tactics to train to a level where you have a chance against tough, determined aggressors.

On a separate note, one problem with the concept of armed defense at the county fair:

In Florida, you can't carry legally at public gatherings. Georgia has recently revised the laws, but I'm not sure if an event like a fair is legal for CCW. I am pretty sure that most states would frown on carrying at the fair.

Regards,

M

Keltyke
July 22, 2008, 10:17 AM
It's PC to talk about bullies being inherently cowardly, and suffering from self-esteem issues.

No one is arguing some of these punks are legitimately tough. After all, they spend most of their time fighting off "Mama Bubba" and lifting weights while living at the expense of the state. All anyone is suggesting that flight is a possibility.

As for being prepared to go the distance, I don't think anyone is suggesting they would shoot one, then stop and see what the others do. We've ALL been taught in our respective CWP classes, "Shoot until the threat is negated."

However, most people, no matter how tough, would not go (unarmed) up against a gun, no matter how many there are. You drill one dead center then cycle to the next one and I can pretty much guarantee he's gonna take a long think about his next action. Muscle doesn't compare to bullets and staring into a muzzle is intimidating to anyone.

Your point IS taken, though. ALWAYS be prepared to go all the way.

gyrfalcon16
July 22, 2008, 02:29 PM
In Minnesota he could have taken steps to using deadly force...

At least three conditions must concur to excuse or justify homicide under SSSS 609.06 and 609.065:

(1) The killing must have been done in the belief that it was necessary to avert death or grievous bodily harm.

(2) The judgment of the defendant as to the gravity of the peril to which he was exposed must have been reasonable under the circumstances.

(3) The defendant's election to kill must have been such as a reasonable man would have made in light of the danger to be apprehended.

Personally I feel he was justified to shoot them before they messed with his daughter.

buzz_knox
July 22, 2008, 03:25 PM
However, most people, no matter how tough, would not go (unarmed) up against a gun, no matter how many there are. You drill one dead center then cycle to the next one and I can pretty much guarantee he's gonna take a long think about his next action. Muscle doesn't compare to bullets and staring into a muzzle is intimidating to anyone.


People fight with cops (who tend to be armed) all the time. All too many of them win. Crooks fight with other crooks (who also tend to be armed) quite a bit, and often win. Convenience store workers are known to grapple with armed robbers, and often win. Disarm techniques are a major field of study, in police academies, training courses, and prisons.

The only guarantee that can be made is that no one has a clue what will happen. And while you are staring down one or two, the other 6 are circling to grab you. Keep waving the weapon around to put them all under the muzzle, and you've marked yourself as prey who will fall.