Drawing on a Minor?

[Venom1956]

Ok I'll try and keep this short. I CAN'T have a CCW here in WI but I do have a folder. This is a hypothetical todays events brought me to a situation I hadn't really considered if I am someday allowed to CC.

I almost got in to a scrap with a bunch (roughly 12?) of 16-18 year old gangbangers today when they where hassling a young lady and then stole some of her money. I attempted to just passively diffuse the situation and give her what was stolen from my money, they noticed and shook her down again. Took it outside (caught up with them in the parking lot) and settled matters, luckily the backed off and returned the money.

After the whole thing was over I began thinking about what would've happened if this escalated or another situation that required you to draw you weapon against a minor(s) I'm only bout 5'-9" in heels and 165 several of them where MUCH bigger then I. I've seen some pretty rough and tumble teens... I'm 23.

So I am curious what you opinions on this matter where. Not in my exact situation (thats just what started me thinking about it) but in general? I hope this isn't misinterpreted as a running in to danger with guns drawn. I just think drawing on a minor would seem to open a whole second can of worms on top of just drawing you weapon.

Love to hear you feedback or personal experiences on the matter.

[ScottRiqui]

While the age of the person(s) you confront may be emotional fodder if the situation ends up in a courtroom, I don't think there are any legal distinctions between drawing your weapon on a minor and someone that's reached the age of majority.

[Sefner]

Scott is correct. The law is only concerned with actions, not actors (or should be anyways). The fact that there were a dozen of them goes against them. No one wants to shoot anyone, let alone someone with a whole life ahead of them but no law I know of takes that into consideration. They are forcing you into a situation that you must react to. Their age matters not.

[qcpunk]

This particularly applies with regards to "Disparity of Force." Disparity of force is a "measure" of advantage. A male agressor vs female victim; young agressor vs elder; full adult vs teen; etc..... you get the point lol. This also applies to numbers as well. 12-13 teens vs a 65 yr old man, obviously he is in far greater danger than any of the teens. Therefore he is more "rightly justified" in the use of lethal force than the group of teens might be if the 65 yr old was the agressor.

Scott is most certainly still correct though. I think we would all agree that if, God forbid, a misguided young teen has put us into the moment of Fight or Flight, many of us would hesitate. This is where alternative means of defense come into play, but I wont really get into that topic.

Final point-- "I feared for my life, and I did what I believed was necessary to avoid serious injury and/or death to myself or loved one." Should such an unforunate event land in court, those will be the saving words.

[Capt. Charlie]

Good question actually, and one I've not seen addressed here before. It also touches a nerve.

Shortly after I joined the PD, I got a call to the county children's home to investigate a reported breaking and entering in progress. Turns out that is was a 16 yr. old boy trying to sneak in a window to see his girl .

I didn't know that at the time though, and in LE you never assume anything. It was well after midnight and I spotted a person hiding behind a bush. I ordered him out at gunpoint, had him "assume the position", and 'cuffed him.

Our brass at the time were really old school, without much knowledge of either law or tactics, and I got chewed 16 ways from Tuesday for pointing a gun at and 'cuffing a minor. Better heads prevailed though, and I was exonerated.

Since then, and after 27 years in law enforcement, I've learned that juveniles are generally far more dangerous than adults. They're impulsive; They don't think before they act, and they don't consider consequences. I worried much more about being shot by a juvenile than by an adult.

In any confrontation, NEVER consider the actor's age. Even a 10 yr. old can, and sometimes will, kill if he's armed. What matters is who survives, you, and maybe others? Or him?

[CWPinSC]

After the whole thing was over I began thinking about what would've happened if this escalated or another situation that required you to draw you weapon

If you had drawn your weapon, you might have been in serious trouble. Your motives and intentions are admirable, your execution leaves some to be desired.

I don't know the laws in WI, I can only speak for SC. Here, you CAN IN NO WAY be at fault for the incident.

Carrying a weapon does NOT empower you as a LEO in any way.

In SC, we have "third party" defense. You may defend another person if you believe they would defend themselves were they capable, and you must only do what "any reasonable person" would do. You followed and accosted them AFTER the incident was over as far as the young lady was concerned. At that point, there was no threat to her life. Your life was not threatened as they were leaving the scene. Had you fired, you would need a GOOD lawyer.

Now, as for drawing on a minor...as our soldiers saw in Vietnam, a 13 year old can kill you just as dead as a 30 year old. Age has nothing to do with threat.

[dec41971]

You know what? If you had drawwn on one of the punks and I was on a jury of your peers, I'd be laughing at them saying servers them right. I mean commonsense usually prevails in the aftermath. Anybody suggesting you stand there take it from a bunch of wild teens is out of their mind. They will sooner kill you as easily as an adult. Its not the age, but the force disparity that counts.

[Venom1956]

@CWPinSC... I think you misread my post. I never said it made me a LEO I probably wouldn't have drawn if I could even carry in the first place... Secondly he did steal MY property, (the money I offered her to allow her to eat) I don't care what or how much it is... there will be repercussions. How would've I been @ fault if I ran him down to get my ten dollars back and 2 of his friends pulled out knives?

Anyway the whole point of the story was to frame why I began pondering a situation involving a minor, this wasn't a situation I would've drawn in, but I could very well see something with similar odds and age groups happening to others...

[Don H]

Originally Posted by Venom1956

Took it outside (caught up with them in the parking lot) and settled matters, luckily the backed off and returned the money.

I think in Utah you would need a really good lawyer since they bangers left and you pursued them with intent of a confrontation. I don't believe that I've noticed anything about minors in the firearms laws but 'child endangerment', multiple counts, might well be one of the charges you would face.

76-10-506. Threatening with or using dangerous weapon in fight or quarrel.
Every person, except those persons described in Section 76-10-503, who, not in necessary self defense in the presence of two or more persons, draws or exhibits any dangerous weapon in an angry and threatening manner or unlawfully uses the same in any fight or quarrel is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

76-2-402. Force in defense of person -- Forcible felony defined.
(1) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that force is necessary to defend himself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, that person is justified in using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if he or she reasonably believes that force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself or a third person as a result of the other's imminent use of unlawful force, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(2) A person is not justified in using force under the circumstances specified in Subsection (1) if he or she:
(a) initially provokes the use of force against himself with the intent to use force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant;
(b) is attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony; or
(c) (i) was the aggressor or was engaged in a combat by agreement, unless he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his intent to do so and, notwithstanding, the other person continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force; and
(ii) for purposes of Subsection (i) the following do not, by themselves, constitute "combat by agreement":
(A) voluntarily entering into or remaining in an ongoing relationship; or
(B) entering or remaining in a place where one has a legal right to be.
(3) A person does not have a duty to retreat from the force or threatened force described in Subsection (1) in a place where that person has lawfully entered or remained, except as provided in Subsection (2)(c).
(4) For purposes of this section, a forcible felony includes aggravated assault, mayhem, aggravated murder, murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, and aggravated kidnapping, rape, forcible sodomy, rape of a child, object rape, object rape of a child, sexual abuse of a child, aggravated sexual abuse of a child, and aggravated sexual assault as defined in Title 76, Chapter 5, and arson, robbery, and burglary as defined in Title 76, Chapter 6. Any other felony offense which involves the use of force or violence against a person so as to create a substantial danger of death or serious bodily injury also constitutes a forcible felony. Burglary of a vehicle, defined in Section 76-6-204, does not constitute a forcible felony except when the vehicle is occupied at the time unlawful entry is made or attempted.
(5) In determining imminence or reasonableness under Subsection (1), the trier of fact may consider, but is not limited to, any of the following factors:
(a) the nature of the danger;
(b) the immediacy of the danger;
(c) the probability that the unlawful force would result in death or serious bodily injury;
(d) the other's prior violent acts or violent propensities; and
(e) any patterns of abuse or violence in the parties' relationship.

[Venom1956]

@ Don H, The confrontation outside wouldn't have involved a firearm if I even possessed one. I understand what your saying but that wasn't my intention to be clear. I was professional stopped him running with a hand on the shoulder no other physical contact during the event I demanded MY money back and told him if i ever saw him doing it again LE would become involved. He was scared out of his mind (probably wasn't expecting someone to stand up to him) forked it over and took off.


I just really want it to be clear I wasn't going all internet commando super mall ninja on this guy. I just brought something to my attention that I hadn't previously considered and wanted to post my feelings on TFL.

[R1145]

In the criminal case, it would have no bearing, lethal force being justified when necessary to protect life when all else fails. In California, you have a duty to retreat if possible, unless you're in your home or are a peace officer.

However, in the inevitable civil case that will follow, all that stuff comes into play. Hope you've got money for the lawyer...

IMHO, your best course of action would have been to call the cops.

[epr105]

My 2 cents.... If a under age actor is committing a FELONY then they need to be treated as an adult. It is hard to make decisions under pressure when you are the one who will face the consequences of your actions or inaction.
I could go on about this subject but, I fear it will start a nasty war on the subject. You did what you felt was right and in some states if it had turned into a lethal force encounter you could have been wrong in the eyes of the law.
So I feel it is smart to know the law of the state you are in and have a good understanding of it. This was a good topic for the forum as the criminals are getting younger and more violent. Just my observation.

Ed

[Venom1956]

epr105 feel free to post your feelings this is what this post was for. To discuss this, obviously we aren't all gonna agree with each other.

[NavyLT]

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...d.php?t=399872

A justified shoot is a justified shoot, regardless of the ages of either the criminal or the defender.

As far as the age of the defender, 18 USC 922 (X) provides an example:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1...2----000-.html

(x)
(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell, deliver, or otherwise transfer to a person who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe is a juvenile—
(A) a handgun; or
(B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun.
(2) It shall be unlawful for any person who is a juvenile to knowingly possess—
(A) a handgun; or
(B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun.

(3) This subsection does not apply to—
(D) the possession of a handgun or ammunition by a juvenile taken in defense of the juvenile or other persons against an intruder into the residence of the juvenile or a residence in which the juvenile is an invited guest.

(5) For purposes of this subsection, the term “juvenile” means a person who is less than 18 years of age.

[fastforty]

We use several targets that have kids on them instead of the usual banger looking BG's. Most students don't have too much of a problem shooting the ugly, mean looking kid who is pointing a gun right at them (though many hesitate for a moment before they pull the trigger). One kid has a gun, but he's not pointing it at you & he doesn't look menacing- he almost never gets shot. The third kid is an innocent, and on the very rare occasion that he takes a round it really messes up the student. I mean, big time. There is always a lot of discussion after the kid targets are used and it always comes down to "no legal difference but you will most likely hesitate just long enough for him to shoot you first if he has a mind to".

[bcarver]

Sad to say but I know of a 9 year old who shot his mothers boyfriend(a deputy) and an eighty-nine year old man who killed two security guards.
I also know of a 8 month pregnant woman who pointed a gun(44 magnum)at some cops.(they shot her.)
Some people feel that the life of a twelve year-old girl is more valueble than a 29 year old man but either one can kill you.

[Lee Lapin]

Do you carry a cell phone too? You didn't mention it... and getting help on the way before you take on 12-1 odds might be something you ought to consider, along with all the other possibilities.

You might want to talk to a local criminal defense attorney and get your questions answered about what you should and shouldn't do re. self defense in your jurisdiction. The courtroom is not where you want to wind up getting your legal education...

lpl

[Brian Pfleuger]

If you do ever carry a gun....

don't insert yourself into 12 to 1 odds.



The goal is to AVOID confrontation. Unless it's apparent that they're going to cause serious bodily injury to the victim then just call the police, take some video/pictures maybe, and wait it out. A few bucks isn't worth getting shot or shooting someone over, especially when you have to voluntarily insert yourself into the situation to make it happen.

[The Tourist]

First of all, Wisconsin bangers are a differing breed. They wear pastel colors as insignia (I believe the gang the OP confronted was an 'autumn'), they blast Lawwrence Welk music from their Prius lowriders, and support themselves by smuggling untaxed cheese in from Illinois.

Having said that, the entire incident was a Charlie-Francis. Out-numbered, no gun, an innocent civilian in the balance, not even an attempt to 9-1-1 the Federales, and a second confrontation. Yikes.

I think we should put a 'stickie' on this thread re-named "Here's Everything You Can Screw Up."

[Uncle Ben]

I would expect the likelihood of a civil lawsuit would skyrocket upward the younger the agreessor is. Ridiculous of course, but still probably the case these days.

[MisterPX]

A 10 year old girl can kill you just as effectively as a 45 year old man.

[goodspeed(TPF)]

Eight to Eighty, blind, crippled or crazy. Iffin my life's in danger, you'll be pushin daisies. (I think this should answer your original question.)

P.S. It is perfectly legal to Open Carry in WI. You might want to get some actual training first and read up on the laws in WI. -Goodspeed

[Venom1956]

Goodspeed, I know about open carry and frankly its frowned upon here. Not worth the hassle. Training in what?

Thats kinda harsh Tourist. Yeah these where the 'Gangbangers' that probably rode around in their moms Minivan and thats the only reason I really wasn't concerned about confronting them being so out numbered. There was only one confrontation after he stole from me... why would I call the police when I could just catch him? You would all just sit there and except the fact that he stole your money? I don't think personally that I did anything wrong. This incident didn't involve weapons or even physical violence. He realized he mess up as soon as I stood up.

As I said several times this incident simply made me ponder a what if situation that your assailant(s) would've been minors and how your actions would differ then with an adult assailant...

[Sefner]

Wow guys we are really taking the OP out of context here. The OP said they would not have drawn even if they had had a firearm. The question was about the legality of drawing on a minor (see the thread title), not about whether or not they should have drawn in this situation (they said they wouldn't). I find the OP's action commendable for returning stolen property. Sure they took a pretty big risk, but at least they did something to right a wrong. I think the OP is of the right mind that if they had thought that the kids were extremely dangerous they wouldn't have taken the risk.

[Venom1956]

I really didn't appreciate some of these comments by some members that I had held in quite high regard. Don't be little or talk down to me, learn to read.