Engaging an "unarmed person..."

[Tactical Jackalope]

I saw some footage that really disturbed me and I've seen it before in person but didn't know the severity of the injuries because I never followed through.

Two girls are in a physical altercation. They fall to the ground and the one on top grabs the others head, and with all her might she bashes the other girls skull into the ground 3 times. Then girl then locks up her legs. Her arms become distorted. Her eyes wide open. And begins seizing. Then the woman gets off, punches her 2 more times, and kicks her in the back, then takes off. The story is she now has permanent brain damage.


So, defining "unarmed" is a totally different thing these days. With the media shouting that out left and right it's never justified that anyone should ever shoot an "unarmed" person. They never take into consideration just how fragile the human body is.

Police officers carry a multitude of weapons. Imagine one getting knocked unconscious when someone is in a fit of rage and seeing red? Imagine us concealed carrying Americans, thinking twice because of what has been instilled in our minds by the masses to believe that we cannot defend ourselves unless we see a gun and have the person shooting at us or even getting hit. The things that are said go that far. "You didn't know if it was loaded." Or "he just wanted your money." Etc. Imagine we get overpowered and someone takes away our weapon that we have in our waistband. Nothing good can come from that.


Fights, are for television, and children. Self defense, in hand to hand altercations are great if you train professionally or by a professional. If you're not trained in hand to hand combat. Don't engage in hand to hand combat. If you're not trained in gunfighting, try even harder not to get into a gun fight.

Avoid the altercations at all costs. The only reason you should ever engage anyone at all is to save your life or a loved ones life. If someone's life is in imminent danger of great bodily harm (becoming a vegetable) or death.


Case and point. A person who is unarmed is still deadly and should be treated as so. The severity of how they should be treated as so could never be guessed, every case is different.

We can sit here for decades and pull out different fantasy scenarios to attempt to break or make what I said in this post. The only thing that's an undeniable fact that we should all agree on is that a person does NOT need to me "armed" to be deadly or be a threat to you. You need to use your own judgment at the time. Just don't let your guard down into thinking they're not just because they don't have a weapon in their hands. Their hands are bad enough.

[Tactical Jackalope]

Also, I did not post the link to the video because I don't know if I'd be allowed to. Haven't been on here as much as I used to. If a MOD can PM me to see it, if it's okay than that's fine.



Edit: Warning, graphic and disturbing.

http://m.liveleak.com/view?i=409_1396592847

<<<Links are fine as long as they provide the appropriate warnings so that members are not blindsided by offensive or graphic content. Also as long as the post contains enough content besides the link so that it isn't a driveby. JohnKSa>>>

[veamon]

All I know is I don't care if someone has a weapon or not. If they can do some damage to me, I consider them armed, and I'm not going to hesitate to use everything I have on me to make sure I make it home to see my family.

[Moomooboo]

How about we not swag it and learn from knowledgeable individuals

Watch "Massad Ayoob - Cato Institute - Stand Your Ground Laws" on YouTube
https://youtu.be/EsQeTKnD_f0

[Mobuck]

With someone of my age, stature, and disabilities, it's not difficult to justify the "disparity of force" clause.
For an unknown assailant/victim scenario, determining the need for use of deadly force is very unclear. The scenario described might be one of those in which taking a picture of the "winner" of the brawl would be the best answer. By the time you've determined that serious physical harm is being or has been done, the time for stopping the aggression is past.
Stepping into an unknown confrontation might get you whupped also.

[Fisher]

Constantine, that is an interesting scenario and you are right we can sit here and debate all day on how this could be handled. I believe it should be broken down into two different scenarios. The first would be just like the one you described. The altercation happens and the attacker runs away. In this case I would not use deadly force. That's not to say I would not yell and try to verbally break up the fight. I would just not become the aggressor. I do not know what caused the fight nor do I know who started the fight. So becoming involved without that information. I could easily be seen as the aggressor in someone else's eyes. Using deadly force in this case could cause me to be arrested.

The other scenario would be that you intervened verbally and the attacker charged you. In my opinion after seeing the aggressor do that much damage to a person. Then coming after me would be enough for me to draw a weapon and use it if they do not stop after hearing commands from me to stop. She certainly has displayed to me that she is capable of doing a large amount of damage without a firearm. That tells me I have to protect myself from her actions. I certainly could still be arrested for using deadly force. However I believe I am in a better position to defend my actions.

This should be an interesting discussion.

Jim

[Tactical Jackalope]

Moomoo! I love that name... I call my dog that sometimes.

Yes, I've seen that video. And no, we want to swag it. That's why I posted on a gun forum. To keep people aware so that they can do research (like search your video) and so that people like yourself and myself can provide good info. That is the sole purpose of this post.

[Tactical Jackalope]

Completely agreed Jim.

As for the one with shooting someone in the back. If they just killed a person or are taking someone away and you feel you have a clear shot, that's also justifiable. Just because someone turned around at what they feel is an opportune moment doesn't make them immune. If they unleashed a barrage of bullets and struck people then flee, they're getting engaged.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by veamon:

All I know is I don't care if someone has a weapon or not. If they can do some damage to me, I consider them armed, and I'm not going to hesitate to use everything I have on me to make sure I make it home to see my family.

"Can do some damage" won't cut it in a defense of justification.

"Can cause death or serious bodily harm" would meet the requirement for ability, even in the absence of a weapon, but three would remain the issues of opportunity, jeopardy, and preclusion, and whether the actor had initiated the conflict.

That trip home to see one's family, should it happen, could turn to be a short visit, absent adequate evidence supporting justification.

[Moomooboo]

You know i used to be against mas ayoob simply because so many people quoted him kn gun forums. Sometimes people who are revered and have a cult following arent the best people to listen to. But i recently started watching videos and he has great points and information. He certainly speaks well.

[Moomooboo]

Originally Posted by Fisher

Constantine, that is an interesting scenario and you are right we can sit here and debate all day on how this could be handled. I believe it should be broken down into two different scenarios. The first would be just like the one you described. The altercation happens and the attacker runs away. In this case I would not use deadly force. That's not to say I would not yell and try to verbally break up the fight. I would just not become the aggressor. I do not know what caused the fight nor do I know who started the fight. So becoming involved without that information. I could easily be seen as the aggressor in someone else's eyes. Using deadly force in this case could cause me to be arrested.

The other scenario would be that you intervened verbally and the attacker charged you. In my opinion after seeing the aggressor do that much damage to a person. Then coming after me would be enough for me to draw a weapon and use it if they do not stop after hearing commands from me to stop. She certainly has displayed to me that she is capable of doing a large amount of damage without a firearm. That tells me I have to protect myself from her actions. I certainly could still be arrested for using deadly force. However I believe I am in a better position to defend my actions.

This should be an interesting discussion.

Jim

You can use your weapon to prevent someone else grievous bodily harm. The video i linked explains it.

[Tactical Jackalope]

Moomoo, I know what you mean. At least you've opened up to his teachings. He does for very well. As well as the late Paul Gomez.

OldMarksman, that'll be sad. These days it's not about what happened it's about what you can prove. And while I don't wish to debate afterlife, I feel like defending your life from someone's selfish act is a good way to stay.

[buckhorn_cortez]

Fights, are for television, children, and self defense if you train professionally or by a professional. If you're not trained in hand to hand combat. Don't engage in hand to hand combat. If you're not trained in gunfighting, try even harder not to get into a gun fight.

Awfully broad generalizations, which are difficult to implement in real life.

I was followed into a parking lot by a guy who was at least 40 years younger than me. He followed me across the parking lot, and when I turned back toward the building I had come out of - he cut off my access to the building.

I told him to stop following me - and then, when he persisted and got within about 20-inches from me - I put him on his backside on the pavement and then walked away.

Sometimes the "good advice" you find on the Internet doesn't match reality...

[Tactical Jackalope]

I don't mind your insult. It's your opinion. It differs, and I'm fine with that. Though I feel you still fall under the "trained" category. So good job on that. I don't understand what possesses someone to do that.. he literally followed you and didn't adhere to your verbal warning? The people I encounter like that are usually on drugs. Was he on drugs?

Anyways, glad you handled that situation swiftly! It would have been different if he got up though. Did he turn around and run away?

God, people are crazy.



Edit: and I read what you quoted.. I made some typos! I'm sure your post remains though.

[JERRYS.]

avoid confrontation when and if at all possible. that way the bad guy has to pursue you and it is now he who is engaging an armed person whom he trapped and tried to assault.

also, for those whom seem to forget.... a self defense act will be judged by what was reasonable for a person to do at the time of occurrence, and those factors usually change with every situation and criminal defended against; not after its been reviewed from an armchair.

[Tactical Jackalope]

Originally Posted by JERRYS.

avoid confrontation when and if at all possible. that way the bad guy has to pursue you and it is now he who is engaging an armed person whom he trapped and tried to assault.

Very well put.

[Fisher]

You can use your weapon to prevent someone else grievous bodily harm. The video i linked explains it.

Moomooboo, the video may say it's alright but I make the decision on what to do in the field when my finger is on the trigger. In this case not knowing anything about the situation. I would not pull the trigger on this one. I do agree with you that there are scenarios that may cause you to do so. The point I am trying to make is that you have to evaluate each situation and not make an across the board call on what to do.

Jim

[Tactical Jackalope]

Yeah, every case is different and nothing or no one can have their next move predicted. All we can do is be situational aware and be prepared.

[buckhorn_cortez]

I don't mind your insult.

No insult intended.

Your post has broad generalizations that cannot possibly be followed with no deviation in every day life. Life doesn't follow rules, advice, and suggestions - it just happens and you have to adapt to each individual situation - which is my point.

It's your opinion. It differs, and I'm fine with that.

I never stated an opinion, only made an observation. Most Internet advice is well intended, but usually one-sided and you have to take that into account before you buy into it 100%

Though I feel you still fall under the "trained" category. So good job on that.

I have zero (0) formal self defense training. I played ice hockey for 15 years, including high school and college - you learn to see when people are off balance, and where and how to hit them to make them go down.

In this case, the parking lot was sloped and I made sure I ended up on the high side of the parking lot. I waited until he picked up his leading foot so that his weight was on his back (downhill) foot, and then punched him in the sternum as hard as I could with the palm of my hand. That knocked him backwards about 4-feet and he fell onto his back because he couldn't keep his balance from being hit high and forced backwards downhill.

Lucky punch? Sure, if he was any bigger it probably wouldn't have worked. Then I would have had to do something else...but, now we're into to "what if" scenarios which can play out any way the script writer desires. If I'm the script writer, I do something else that works...

I don't understand what possesses someone to do that.. he literally followed you and didn't adhere to your verbal warning? The people I encounter like that are usually on drugs. Was he on drugs?

Yes. He sized me up as I was leaving an office building. I saw him looking at me out of the corner of his eyes (he was on a sidewalk on the other side of a 4 lane roadway). I stopped in the median and looked directly at him so that he knew, that I knew he was there.

As I crossed the remaining two lanes, he slowed down on the sidewalk and waited for me to enter the parking lot, at which point he turned into the parking lot and paralleled my route, two parked vehicles away from me.

If I stopped. He stopped. If I turned around and moved a different direction - he stopped and then moved the same direction. I told him five separate times "Do not follow me." He just looked at me and smiled each time.

According to the police officer who took my incident report, he was most likely on drugs as he matched the description of a person they had multiple reports about. He lived in an apartment building that is a known drug dealer hangout. The apartment building is about 1/4-mile from the parking lot where the incident happened

Anyways, glad you handled that situation swiftly! It would have been different if he got up though. Did he turn around and run away?

He did get up and attempted to follow me to my truck. I was about 25 yards ahead of him and was in my truck with it started and on my way out of the parking lot before he could get near me again.

He stopped, turned around, flipped me his middle finger over his shoulder and started walking out of the parking lot.

God, people are crazy.

Or on drugs...or both...

BTW - at the time of the incident, I was 64 years old and he was in his mid-20's.

[DaleA]

Welcome back Constantine.
Thanks for posting details buckhorn_cortez.

May I respectfully submit we do NOT try to figure out what the guy in Buckhorn_cortez's example was up to or what he was trying to do?

When rational people try to figure out rational motivations for an IRRATIONAL person I think it is always an effort in futility.

When my friends start saying 'well he MUST have...' or 'OBVIOUSLY he wanted' I just want to say 'stop', do NOT go there. The guy himself might not have known what he was doing at the time.

I'm glad things turned out okay for you Buckhorn and very glad you mentioned that you filed a police report and I will certainly not second guess your actions because I WASN'T there.

Once again though, thanks for posting all the details.

[buckhorn_cortez]

...I will certainly not second guess your actions because I WASN'T there.

I appreciate that courtesy as everyone's 20:20 hindsight is seemingly infallible.

With my 20:20 hindsight - I'd have stayed home from work that day and bought the winning PowerBall ticket during one of my errands...

[Frank Ettin]

The difficulty with the unarmed assailant, and disparity of force in general, is the need for the actor to articulate convincingly why a reasonable person in like circumstances would have concluded that the unarmed assailant nonetheless presented a credible threat of imminent death or grave bodily injury. That is the basic standard for justifying lethal force in self defense.

Establishing an assailant's Ability to deliver force sufficient to cause death or grave bodily injury can be fairly straightforward when he has a knife or a gun or a baseball bat. But it's much tougher when he's unarmed.

[manta49]

As for the one with shooting someone in the back. If they just killed a person or are taking someone away and you feel you have a clear shot, that's also justifiable. Just because someone turned around at what they feel is an opportune moment doesn't make them immune

Would that justifiable in all states in America. ?

[g.willikers]

Wasn't there a similar situation in Florida where an "unarmed" assailant was bashing the head of a neighborhood security guard on the pavement, and the guard shot and killed the guy?
He was charged with the killing, but the jury released him on self defense considerations.
His name was Zimmerman, if I recall.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Constantine:

These days it's not about what happened it's about what you can prove.

Keep in mind that in many jurisdictions, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor.

... I feel like defending your life from someone's selfish act is a good way to stay.

The question is, whether "can do some damage" meets the standard of justifying what a reasonable person would do in "defending ...[his] life."

If the attacker does not have a weapon, that becomes a tough sell.