WWYD - Video

[threegun]

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]

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]

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

Sounds pretty bang-on to me.

[westphoenix]

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]

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]

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 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]

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?
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]

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!

(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.

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by westphoenix

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.



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]

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]

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".

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.

Originally Posted by mvpel

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.

Originally Posted by mvpel

...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...

Originally Posted by mvpel

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]

[mvpel]

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 bull[color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color] terms like "schoolyard scrap."

[nbk2000]

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 bull[color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color] 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:

Originally Posted by mvpel

...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:

Originally Posted by mvpel

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]

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]

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...d.php?t=209818