I shot an unarmed 16 year old--- kinda sorta

This is a discussion on I shot an unarmed 16 year old--- kinda sorta within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by dripster This has to be the most asinine post ever. In the topic header you state you shot a 16 year old. ...

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 53 of 53
Like Tree21Likes

Thread: I shot an unarmed 16 year old--- kinda sorta

  1. #46
    VIP Member Array zacii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    arizona
    Posts
    3,749
    Quote Originally Posted by dripster View Post
    This has to be the most asinine post ever. In the topic header you state you shot a 16 year old. Then it turns out to ber a scenario. That is ridiculous. Dont post stupid crap like that.
    Apparently you have never heard of force on force training.

    This section is specifically for hypothetical scenarios, etc.

    Or a troll, perhaps...
    Trust in God and keep your powder dry

    "A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government." -source

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #47
    Moderator
    Array Rock and Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado at 11,650'
    Posts
    12,241
    I can't give you all the permutations on disparity of force, but my brief example remains valid.
    But by necessity, we need apply very nuanced distinctions which more likely than not be parallel to the actual world. The extremes are easy, as one moves into the middle the lines blur and fine distinctions are needed. One extreme or the other may occur, but the likelihood would, in my estimation, be more solidly in the grey mushy area in the middle.

    Yep.......for the Prosecutor, Defense, and Jury, and the potential defendant that may or may not be able, or may or may not be allowed by counsel, to articulate the thought process at the time of the event.

    Mother Teresa could have gotten a "Kings X" for defending herself against virtually anyone except Julie Andrews, Chuck Norris would have a hard time convincing anyone he needed anything more than a steely stare to disarm an opponent.

    Based on my limited analysis of the matter presented, I think Hopyard gets a "Pass", particularly in Texas. Of course, I am a cranky old fool behind a keyboard.

  4. #48
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,597
    Quote Originally Posted by Rock and Glock View Post
    Of course, I am a cranky old fool behind a keyboard.
    Me too!!!!!
    Rock and Glock likes this.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  5. #49
    Senior Member Array dripster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    618
    Next time try not to list false statements in your topic headings. I almost shot a sixteen year old? Stupid crap posted like that makes all of us look bad!


    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Role playing and MA/ SD scenario. I didn't know the full script. Felt it in my gut.

    It started with an interview. A kid who I thought was 18 just asked for the time, politely. I looked at him and (for real) wasn't sure how old he was as I'd not met him before. (I did know he was part of the training session.) Asked him how old? He answered 16.

    Me: Where do you go to school?
    Him: Blah Blahh High School.
    Me: I've lived here a long time never heard of that, where is it?
    He: some bull answer.
    Me: (command voice) Why aren't you in school? {This part was unplanned dialogue and is probably about how it would go for me in the real world. I did suddenly want to know why he wasn't in school at 10 AM.}

    At that---

    He shoved me and we got into a standing shoving match with me pinning him against the fence. (This initial attack was planned for training, and not in actuality provoked by my demand to know why he wasn't in school. It just happened to work out that way. It had a very realistic feel to it as it happened.)

    I look over my shoulder and I'm being attacked by a 30 something with a knife. The kid was
    diverting my attention from what was going on in back of me.

    I turn and disarm my attacker, strike a blow and throw the knife away. Kid (who has been and is empty handed) starts to charge in to assist the second attacker. I wasn't expecting it to got that way though it is obviously what would occur in a real world ambush.

    Me: I pull and fire at the kid (toy gun).

    OK not all was role playing. The kid in fact is on probation, going to an alternative school which is why he was not in school--I didn't know that at the outset. My MA /SD instructor was baby sitting him in lieu of the kid being in class, but I didn't know that either. I didn't find out about that part until after. My MA Instructor was the second attacker with the knife.

    When the kid charged me I really felt like it was a real fight even though I knew it wasn't. He did momentarily scare me, and my reaction was to pull the toy training gun and "shoot" the kid. I was supposed to kick him off, and continue with combatives.

    Well, this scenario is not unrealistic. You could be walking in a park, or find yourself in a secluded place, and be set- up by an innocent looking kid who'd keep you busy while a more experienced and more vicious BG would set on you from behind. An ambush.

    So, here's the question. I really surprised myself when I pulled and fired the toy gun. I was supposed to kick him off and send a combative to his head. The kid charging at me felt real. My gut screamed, " two on one, they'll beat the s out of me."

    In the real world, Justified? Not Justified? Guilty? Not Guilty?

    If justified, how? On numbers disparity alone? On the immediately preceding fight over the knife which continued after the disarm? On disparity due to age difference as well? On the ongoing nature of the fight which had involved aggravated assault?

    If not justified-- kids age? bare hands? knife already thrown into the wood? No lethal weapon in play?


    The scenario started out as training for H2H responses, but in the heat of the moment I added the shooting quite reflexively without thinking, and might in real life too.

    As I drove home I began to wonder about whether "shooting" was right or wrong, and how the law might look at it. Heck, how the participants might look at it too.

    Any takers?
    One more step and it's on!

  6. #50
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,597
    Quote Originally Posted by dripster View Post
    Next time try not to list false statements in your topic headings. I almost shot a sixteen year old? Stupid crap posted like that makes all of us look bad!

    If you are going to post about the title I chose, please post the actual title in its entirety, including the "kinda sorta" and note that it is within the scenario forum; not the section where one might report a real SD occurrence.

    I hope you read the whole thread. Post 1 to the end. There's good stuff in here.
    Rock and Glock likes this.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  7. #51
    Distinguished Member Array kazzaerexys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Bark'n View Post
    I agree. However, in this case where you have a situation where the victim's age is twice that of both the assailants, along with the use of a deadly weapon, I think there would be little doubt as to the legitimacy of the lethal force used.

    It was a stranger attack

    Two able bodied young thugs against one (senior citizen who is disabled)

    They used a deadly weapon
    As I said earlier, my personal opinion was that the lethal force would be justified, but we all know that there are jurisdictions where one is more at risk of being put on trial for a self defense shooting than in others.

    Frankly, I think the deciding factor (which I may have missed from the OP) is the fact that the victim is disabled and particularly older than the assailants. I think that is plenty to establish the disparity of force that provides the assailants with the ability to inflict lethal injury even after the knife was out of play.

    Nonetheless, if I were going to play the role of scumbag prosecutor, I wouldn't give any credence to the stranger aspect or the fact that they used (past tense) a knife that was no longer part of the situation. In fact, the disarm would add into my prosecutorial argument. "You see the defendant was clearly capable of handling a physical fight, even disarming a man young enough to be his own grandson! But then the bloodlust took over and he just had to finish things off even after having taken the young man's knife away..."

    Even though the knife was removed from the scuffle, the fight never ceased, abated, or let up at all. One is not expected to be able to pull back once the deadly threat was initiated if the victim had no opportunity to reassess the situation. (Who's to say the victim even knew for sure that the knife was out of the equation).

    It really goes to the state of mind of the victim. He was in fear for his life!
    Actually, it goes to the state of the mind of the Reasonable Man put in the victim's shoes. Again, if the victim were an able-bodied 40-year old who just disarmed the attacker, I don't think the disparity of force is automatic, though it can still definitely be argued.

    At least the way I learned things, at the moment you make the decision to shoot, the attacker(s) must have Ability and Opportunity to do lethal harm and put you in Jeopardy thereof, and yes, you are expected to be able to assess changes to the A-O-J situation even as the action continues.
    “What is a moderate interpretation of [the Constitution]? Halfway between what it says and [...] what you want it to say?” —Justice Antonin Scalia

    SIG: P220R SS Elite SAO, P220R SAO, P220R Carry, P226R Navy, P226, P239/.40S&W, P2022/.40S&W; GSR 5", P6.

  8. #52
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,597
    Quote Originally Posted by kazzaerexys View Post
    As I said earlier, my personal opinion was that the lethal force would be justified, but we all know that there are jurisdictions where one is more at risk of being put on trial for a self defense shooting than in others.

    Frankly, I think the deciding factor (which I may have missed from the OP) is the fact that the victim is disabled and particularly older than the assailants. I think that is plenty to establish the disparity of force that provides the assailants with the ability to inflict lethal injury even after the knife was out of play.

    Nonetheless, if I were going to play the role of scumbag prosecutor, I wouldn't give any credence to the stranger aspect or the fact that they used (past tense) a knife that was no longer part of the situation. In fact, the disarm would add into my prosecutorial argument. "You see the defendant was clearly capable of handling a physical fight, even disarming a man young enough to be his own grandson! But then the bloodlust took over and he just had to finish things off even after having taken the young man's knife away..."



    Actually, it goes to the state of the mind of the Reasonable Man put in the victim's shoes. Again, if the victim were an able-bodied 40-year old who just disarmed the attacker, I don't think the disparity of force is automatic, though it can still definitely be argued.

    At least the way I learned things, at the moment you make the decision to shoot, the attacker(s) must have Ability and Opportunity to do lethal harm and put you in Jeopardy thereof, and yes, you are expected to be able to assess changes to the A-O-J situation even as the action continues.
    Let's take the "disabled" out of the discussion. I didn't state that in the post and it is something R&G inferred from other posts. Meanwhile, I am pretty much able to do about whatever I like--though it takes 14 pills a day. (No, not HIV ). I am mostly blind in one eye but they still let me drive and I can pass the range test--

    So, after the knife (the only one known of by myself as victim) was out of play, it was two young guys against an old dude ---disparity? Usually.

    Does my 2 -3 hours a week on H2H practice
    take that argument away, or is being 69 in 8 weeks on sufficient that most reasonable folks would call it disparity?

    As for the scenario, once the guy with the knife is disarmed, it is down to two on one with an age disparity as well, both modulated by H2H training.

    Not simple.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  9. #53
    Moderator
    Array Rock and Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado at 11,650'
    Posts
    12,241
    Heck if I used "disabled" I'm sorry! I went back and re-read the entire thread, but darn, anybody over 55 ought to be disabled in sum fashion or 'nuther, eh? Just pullin' chains. IQ at least for me..........

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

conceal carry shoot attacker unarmed

,

disparity of force self-defense

Click on a term to search for related topics.