CCW & getting pranked. Along with real life recent occurrence.

[Tactical Jackalope]

Alright, hope this is in the right section. Never really post anything like this..In a few weeks later after the incident that occurred here in Miami, FL



Here's the story...
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/29/2822971/new-video-shows-more-grisly-detail.html


Yes..a man ate another mans face. Literally ate and devoured 80% of his face..people are taking this to a whole new level. Some scared, some laughing, some even doing pranks. We're already on edge with all the weird crap that's been happening here. Really now? Pranks? Which brings me to my topic of the thread.



Here's the prank...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4awVqRr1eCo



Alright now...Let's just get through this without talking so much. I'm being honest here. Depending on a lot of different things, I would have drew my gun on the guy. I can say that's a guarantee.

What do you all think would happen if something were to go south on something like this? I mean I'm sure if he saw the weapon he would have freaked out and screamed or ran or something. What if you're that scared and something did happen?

Legal issues? Isn't this insane? Input...I'm alone in a stupid city.

[SigSauerP226]

Things could have went really bad for him. I am truly surprised with how far he took that.

[Stressfire]

While I greatly enjoyed the spectacle of the young men attempting to run away with their pants around their knees (always wondered how this was done), that is quite possibly the stupidest prank I have ever seen.

He could have easily been shot on multiple occasions (pretty sure he got a gun pointed at him at least once - camera was wobbling a lot), not sure of the legal implications there, and would definitely be up for a Darwin Award if he had been.

With so many details of the initial attack unknown, the city on edge, and too many people that have seen too many zombie movies....this was a pretty dumb thing to do

[Brian Pfleuger]

Similar situations have been discussed.

I'm foggy on the exact details but there was some sort of prank TV show, I think. Possibly in Russia? Where the guy dropped a briefcase near people and ran. He eventually got shot.

Short answer, this sort of thing is a really good way to end up dead. In states with Stand Your Ground laws, it would be entirely justified, IME.

[Lambdebois]

I would have definelty drawn my weapon on him. I would have no sympothy for drawing and if needed shooting someone that could do that either. How are you suposed to know? You can't. And with my dissability... I can't take chances.

I hope when those guys chased him down at the end that he got a major whooping for that. Assuming the "prankster" is still alive.... He's lucky to be IMO. As said... Things could have ended very different for doing that.

[TheNocturnus]

It's only funny until someone gets hurt. This guy was trying to have fun but if he would have approached me he would have been warned to stay back or get shot. I bet once he saw steel he would stop and back away.

[Tickling]

According to the video's info page he DID get a gun pointed at him..

Very Dangerous Prank! Almost Got Shot At 2:00!

Pretending to attack someone, prank or no, you're taking your chances.

[9mm]

blood all over you? screaming and chasing me/people around me? hunched over? = looks like your trying to kill people. I bet the guy who drew the gun @ 2:00 thought he saw a REAL zombie and has a story for his pals...

[Isk]

From a legal perspective it still falls under the reasonable person standard. Would a reasonable person have been in fear for their life or of great bodily harm? Given recent events...maybe.

[Frank Ettin]

As Brian and Isk point out, it's going to be a matter of whether you reasonably thought that you were facing a lethal thread and had no other choice.

But if your defense is, "I thought I was being attacked by a Zombie.", you'll be flunking the reasonable person test.

[Hansam]

While in WI we do not have the right to stand our ground I WILL say that whenever I'm out in public I've got my kids with me (I have 5 of them ranging from 5 months to 13 yrs old). That makes my decision a given - I'd stand my ground, draw and try to hold off the attacker while my family was able to flee to safety. I'll deal with legal repercussions later when my family is safe and sound.

If this guy were to come prank me while I was out at a park with my kids he'd have gotten shot. Seriously if you had young children with you who couldn't flee quickly (including an infant) what would you do if a stranger covered in blood, disheveled and grunting/growling like an animal were to rush you? What kind of a parent would I be if I left my kids behind to flee?

With what DID happen in FL I'd probably have emptied a mag into him from my 1911 and then emptied another just to make sure he didn't get back up to ensure my family was safe.

While I enjoyed watching idiots try to flee with their pants around their ankles and knees I think this guy is an idiot that was just DAMNED lucky none of those people he pranked actually shot him. The prank is stupid and extremely dangerous (even in a state that doesn't allow CCW) since you don't know who might or might not be carrying (legally or otherwise).

[aarondhgraham]

I just can't see where any reasonable person should be expected to behave otherwise.

Some shambling person is sporting bloodstains, growls at me, and advancing on me in a menacing manner?

That's assault in every place I have ever lived in.

Maybe it's not battery,,,
But it's reason to draw my handgun.

If he keeps coming towards me after he sees my weapon,,,
Then I do believe the "reasonable person" criteria has been met,,,
I'll let him get close enough to me so that I can claim restraint and then not miss.

Or maybe I'll be backing away while keeping him covered,,,
That has worked for me in the past and I didn't have to go to court.

I do not believe that the prankster automatically deserves to be shot,,,
But if I were on a jury hearing the plea of a shooter,,,
I do not believe I could vote for a conviction.

I do firmly believe that if you do stupid things in and to the public,,,
You put yourself at risk of harm from that same public.

But then again this statement brought another thought to mind:

...what would you do if a stranger covered in blood, disheveled and grunting/growling like an animal were to rush you?

Many many moons ago I was "rushed" by a "stranger covered in blood, disheveled and grunting/growling like an animal",,,
I didn't carry a handgun at the time so I just snap-kicked him in the stomach,,,
Imagine my chagrin when I discovered he was a mugging victim,,,
He had been beaten severely and was seeking help.

Aarond

.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by aarondhgraham

I just can't see where any reasonable person should be expected to behave otherwise...

If it turns out you shot a twerpy kid wearing ketchup stains, like the kid in the video, it's quite possible that a jury will be explaining that to you.

Yes, you may defend yourself or another with lethal force if a reasonable person would have concluded it was necessary in order to avoid immediate death or grave bodily injury. That applies even if the apparent attack was a prank or if the guys gun was a toy or unloaded, and such cases have been found to have been legitimate self defense.

But we are still expected to exercise judgment, and it was pretty obvious to me that the kid in the video was just some jerk getting some jollies.

[aarondhgraham]

Did you notice that I made that statement about brandishing my gun?

Not about shooting the prankster.

In fact I stated I would only shoot if and when he saw my gun and kept advancing.

If he keeps coming towards me after he sees my weapon,,,
Then I do believe the "reasonable person" criteria has been met,,,

~Sheesh~

Aarond

P.S. You stated:

...and it was pretty obvious to me that the kid in the video was just some jerk getting some jollies.

It was pretty obvious when you were watching the video,,,
It might not be so obvious when it's an up-close surprise situation.

.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by aarondhgraham

Did you notice that I made that statement about brandishing my gun?

Nope, sorry. I missed that.

But also note that in many State the legal requirements for justifying a threat of lethal force are the same as, or substantially similar to, using threat force. And brandishing is a threat of lethal force.

We're adults and will be expected to exercise a degree of judgment and discretion appropriate to adults.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Some shambling person is sporting bloodstains, growls at me, and advancing on me in a menacing manner?

That's assault in every place I have ever lived in.

I saw a zombie dressed flash mob in Boston. Luckily, I didn't have the opportunity to brandish at a teen ager. I said that's cool to the kids.

And let's think about this. If the person was deranged - do you think standing and brandishing is going to deter someone like that?Yeah, issue verbal commands all you want.

So stop being heroic, you should be moving away. If you stand there, you are as bright as a real zombie.

[aarondhgraham]

You must have missed this part:

Or maybe I'll be backing away while keeping him covered,,,
That has worked for me in the past and I didn't have to go to court.

Aarond

.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

If he keeps coming towards me after he sees my weapon,,,
Then I do believe the "reasonable person" criteria has been met,,,
I'll let him get close enough to me so that I can claim restraint and then not miss.

How about that part?

That is not a reasonable statement. Were you making a joke?

In TX, a verbal threat or approach is not sufficient to use lethal force. With no visible weapon - growling isn't going to cut it. Esp. if you said you stood there to expose your gun to see if he continues to approach so you can shoot him.

PS - how can one be sure a derange person even notices your gun? The premise is the person is deranged. Also, if you have done Tueller drills, backing up is not recommened as you can't go backward that fast and can trip. So a toothed version of the Tueller is not going to be fun - esp. if you miss. Last, of course, on the Internet, we all shoot accurately with ultimate stopping power. Can one be sure that a deranged person will be hit with a shot that will stop them before they get to you. See, you let them get close.

Just some thoughts on the scenario.

[Stressfire]

I was concerned more with the legal ramifications of firing on an approaching "threat," while capable of inflicting injury, is himself unarmed.

Something tells me that the closing arguments would include "shot an unarmed teenager playing a 'harmless' prank"

Still a dumb, and dangerous, joke

[aarondhgraham]

I believe that is a reasonable statement.

Is it rational to allow an assailant (or suspected assailant) to get within the established distance elaborated by the Tueller Drill,,,
Surely we've hashed out that shooting someone at a distance is a chancy thing,,,
It is absolutely rational to wait until they are closer to shoot

I will not shoot someone until they have closed near enough that there will be no doubt that I was left with no choice.

Many people believe that the only time to draw your weapon,,,
Is when you have made the decision to shoot it.

That's a topic that has come up in almost every training class I have attended,,,
"Must I wait to draw my weapon?"

Every situation is different and can have unique features,,,
But one common instruction in the classes is that you are under no onus to hesitate to draw,,,
Also it has been stressed that just because you draw your weapon you are under no obligation to fire it.

I have been instructed that readying a weapon is not an unreasonable thing to do,,,
And I have personally seen the presence of a weapon stop any further action,,,
Therefore I do believe that drawing a weapon to a perceived threat is valid.

Aarond

.

[zxcvbob]

This is the sort of prank I'm worried about:
http://news.yahoo.com/pa-church-cond...001121227.html I'm still waiting to see what criminal charges are filed.

They do stuff like this occasionally at colleges too -- have an "active shooter" or hostage drill and don't tell the participants

There doesn't need to be a gun involved on either side for this to turn out very badly.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Aaron, you continue to miss the point.

You do not let someone close with you for a better shot. If that's what is the kernel of your argument - you are so wrong.

You are also ignoring that you are trying to deter someone who is deranged. If you don't think the zombie is deranged - then you will have no leg to stand on for your claim of 'assault' or 'reasonable man'. But the zombie might gnaw it off, if you miss.

[aarondhgraham]

The moment a hood went on the girls head she was under criminal assault,,,
I'm not even sure that it would be legal with parental consent.

Aarond

.

[aarondhgraham]

It's an inevitable result of getting closer,,,
I have a better chance of good shot placement.

Call it a by-product result of closing in on someone.

The kernel of the argument is that if I perceive a threat of injury/harm,,,
I can ready the weapon I would use to defend myself.

When the assailant (even a prankster) sees that weapon and continues to advance on me I am justified in shooting them.

Or so I have been trained.

Aarond

.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

When the assailant (even a prankster) sees that weapon and continues to advance on me I am justified in shooting them.

I suggest that your training on the use of lethal force is lacking. Someone advancing on you, even yelling and screaming may not be enough in court.