40-50 Kalamazoo teens beat cyclist unconscious

This is a discussion on 40-50 Kalamazoo teens beat cyclist unconscious within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by ntkb This whole thread got off line...... Let's all remember back to CCW training, if you are not directly threatened you have ...

Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 3456789 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 130

Thread: 40-50 Kalamazoo teens beat cyclist unconscious

  1. #91
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,768
    Quote Originally Posted by ntkb View Post
    This whole thread got off line...... Let's all remember back to CCW training, if you are not directly threatened you have no right to use force. As soon as you draw on the pack of little balls of hate (for bbqgrill) you now have brought the threat attention to you and because you have caused yourself to be put in that situation as soon as you pull the trigger and "take out the lead guy" as some of you "swear" you'll do (which i still don't believe half of you, the internet is a great place to talk up your ego on what you MIGHT do), you have now committed murder and you are no better than them.
    I am glad I don't live in your state or didn't receive the instruction you did, because both of those bold area are WRONG.

    Even before I started to carry, I would have done something in this case, and have stepped in when a guy was getting the snot beat out of him by one guy with about a half dozen of his buddies egging him on. They were all high school aged kids, but it only took some yelling at them and me to get between the two for everyone to get into their cars and leave. The kid getting the snot kicked out of him was able to head into his place of employment without any further damage to himself.

    I would certainly step up if it was a PWD getting the snot kicked out of them, regardless of if I was carrying.
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #92
    Member Array SIG P229 JW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Arizona - The Valley
    Posts
    21
    Here's the Arizona law:

    According to ARS (Arizona Revised Statutes) 13-406, "A person is justified in threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force against another to protect a third person if:

    1. Under the circumstances as a reasonable person would believe them to be, such person would be justified under section 13-404 or 13-405 in threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force to protect himself against the unlawful physical force or deadly physical force a reasonable person would believe is threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and

    2. A reasonable person would believe that such person's intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person."
    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke

    "The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding, go out to meet it." - Thucydides

  4. #93
    Member Array Luke Notaras's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Posts
    28
    40-50 teens attacking an old man? That sounds like a bunch of cowards looking for an easy target, not determined criminals. I'd bet the sound of gunfire would send most if not all of them running.
    Throw nature out with a pitchfork
    And yet she will return

  5. #94
    VIP Member Array LongRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,618
    Quote Originally Posted by JD View Post
    You might want to check on that...
    2008 Minnesota Statutes

    609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE

    The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.
    Thank you, JD that pretty much eliminates that EXCUSE for the cowardice.

    Before anyone gets their panties in a knot understand I did not call you a coward. If you want to wear it, that is on you not me. It is not my place to judge you. I am saying I believe and always will believe that anyone who would stand by and allow a helpless human being to be beaten to death to be a coward. No different than those that are doing the beating. Exactly like those preying on the helpless. As vile and reprehensible as a child molester. Driven by the same selfish centered fear that motivates the predators.
    Abort the Obamanation not the Constitution

    Those who would, deny, require permit, license, certification, or authorization for me to bear arms are as vile, dangerous & evil as those who would molest, abuse, assault, rape or murder my family

  6. #95
    Member Array packin45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    In limbo
    Posts
    388
    Great....so you found 609.065.

    Now tell me how you're going to wade into a group of 40-50 people with guns blazing, and then somehow convince a grand jury that you were an unwilling participant in that situation? I wish you luck, my friend....and I hope you don't have a family that depends on you, and on your income.
    G17, G26

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil...

  7. #96
    Senior Member Array bbqgrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    In Delaware, East of the Mason Dixon Line.
    Posts
    797
    Quote:
    609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE

    The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.

    Quote Originally Posted by packin45 View Post
    Great....so you found 609.065.

    Now tell me how you're going to wade into a group of 40-50 people with guns blazing, and then somehow convince a grand jury that you were an unwilling participant in that situation? I wish you luck, my friend....and I hope you don't have a family that depends on you, and on your income.
    Hey I don't want to wade into MN law or the virtues of getting involved or not getting involved in the defense of a stranger but I think the MN law is very similar to Delaware's law. So in this situation if you come to the aid of the cyclist with deadly force you are not in violation because the cyclist is in a situation where he could legally defend nimself with the use deadly force. Simply you as the Good Samaritan are not causing the attack on the cyclist so you are harmless in the cause for the use of deadly force in self defense or in this case the defense of another. Or, if you prefer the unwilling participant is the cyclist, if you defend the cyclist you are harmless because you did not initiate the attack on the cyclist. All assuming you want to risk the tribulations otherwise associated with this senario.

    Regards,
    "To believe that social reforms can eradicate evil altogether is to forget that evil is a protean creature, forever assuming a new shape when deprived of an old one." - SAT

    Never argue with an idiot - they'll bring you down to their level then beat you with experience.

  8. #97
    JD
    JD is online now
    Administrator
    Array JD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    19,218


    I think everyone need to take a moment and count to ten.

    Packin' you we're claiming that MN did not allow lethal force in defense of another, that apparently isn't the case as the above quoted portion of the law clear states the opposite. Either post some relevant laws backing your position or just leave it alone.

    To everyone else, remember: Attack the argument, not the person. Even if you don't intend to be insulting it can sometimes be misconstrued and taken as an insult.

  9. #98
    Member Array packin45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    In limbo
    Posts
    388
    Quote Originally Posted by JD View Post
    You might want to check on that...
    JD....the law here is clear. There are certain criteria that must be met, in order for the use of lethal force to be justified.....we don't just get a free pass to go out and blow people away as we see fit.

    Among other things, we must be an unwilling participant in the situation, and we must have made every reasonable effort to retreat (this doesn't mean leaving our loved ones behind, and our Castle Doctrine removes the duty to retreat in our own home). You would never convince a grand jury in MN that your use of lethal force was justified in this situation, even with the disparity of force, for this reason.

    Frankly, I'm disappointed that a staff member here would post a response like yours, without taking a few minutes to look into whether or not my posts had merit.

    There's a great local forum here, twincitiescarry.com :: Index, and it's run by, and frequented by, some of the people who were involved with writing our carry permit laws, in addition to other extremely knowledgeable 2A activists, lobbyists, and so on. I suggest both you and LongRider check the site out before commenting on MN law any further.
    G17, G26

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil...

  10. #99
    Senior Member Array bbqgrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    In Delaware, East of the Mason Dixon Line.
    Posts
    797
    Quote Originally Posted by JD View Post


    I think everyone need to take a moment and count to ten.

    Packin' you we're claiming that MN did not allow lethal force in defense of another, that apparently isn't the case as the above quoted portion of the law clear states the opposite. Either post some relevant laws backing your position or just leave it alone.

    To everyone else, remember: Attack the argument, not the person. Even if you don't intend to be insulting it can sometimes be misconstrued and taken as an insult.

    +1 Well said as always.
    "To believe that social reforms can eradicate evil altogether is to forget that evil is a protean creature, forever assuming a new shape when deprived of an old one." - SAT

    Never argue with an idiot - they'll bring you down to their level then beat you with experience.

  11. #100
    Member Array packin45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    In limbo
    Posts
    388
    Quote Originally Posted by bbqgrill View Post
    Hey I don't want to wade into MN law or the virtues of getting involved or not getting involved in the defense of a stranger but I think the MN law is very similar to Delaware's law. So in this situation if you come to the aid of the cyclist with deadly force you are not in violation because the cyclist is in a situation where he could legally defend nimself with the use deadly force. Simply you as the Good Samaritan are not causing the attack on the cyclist so you are harmless in the cause for the use of deadly force in self defense or in this case the defense of another. Or, if you prefer the unwilling participant is the cyclist, if you defend the cyclist you are harmless because you did not initiate the attack on the cyclist. All assuming you want to risk the tribulations otherwise associated with this senario.

    Regards,
    As I understand it, and as I was taught, our laws don't allow us to come to the aid of anyone, due to our duty to retreat when outside our home. I'm not saying I agree with any of this, but it's something I need to be mindful of if I want to carry a gun in MN.
    G17, G26

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil...

  12. #101
    Senior Member Array bbqgrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    In Delaware, East of the Mason Dixon Line.
    Posts
    797
    Quote Originally Posted by packin45 View Post

    Among other things, we must be an unwilling participant in the situation, and we must have made every reasonable effort to retreat (this doesn't mean leaving our loved ones behind, and our Castle Doctrine removes the duty to retreat in our own home). You would never convince a grand jury in MN that your use of lethal force was justified in this situation, even with the disparity of force, for this reason.
    Wouldn't MN recognize the cyclist as the unwilling participant, therefore someone who would be legitimate and lawful in the use of deadly force for self defense? If so then another would be legitimate and lawful in using deadly force to defend the cyclist; again we are hundreds of miles away but I think the laws are very similar, maybe not.


    edit: I just read your previous post, so the previous is a bit redundant.


    Cheers
    Last edited by bbqgrill; February 19th, 2009 at 12:56 AM. Reason: PS
    "To believe that social reforms can eradicate evil altogether is to forget that evil is a protean creature, forever assuming a new shape when deprived of an old one." - SAT

    Never argue with an idiot - they'll bring you down to their level then beat you with experience.

  13. #102
    Member Array packin45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    In limbo
    Posts
    388
    Quote Originally Posted by bbqgrill View Post
    Wouldn't MN recognize the cyclist as the unwilling participant, therefore someone who would be legitimate and lawful in the use of deadly force for self defense? If so then another would be legitimate and lawful in using deadly force to defend the cyclist; again we are hundreds of miles away but I think the laws are very similar, maybe not.


    edit: I just read your previous post, so the previous is a bit redundant.


    Cheers

    We had an incident almost exactly like the original post (a group of guys assaulting someone) last summer....here's a link to the subsequent discussion:

    twincitiescarry.com :: View topic - Yet another one more reason>

    There's mention of MN statute 604A.01 (Good Samaritan law) on page 4, but I looked it up, and it's totally irrelevant to the use of deadly force in defense of someone.

    604A.01 GOOD SAMARITAN LAW.
    Subdivision 1. Duty to assist. A person at the scene of an emergency who knows that another
    person is exposed to or has suffered grave physical harm shall, to the extent that the person can
    do so without danger or peril to self or others, give reasonable assistance to the exposed person.
    Reasonable assistance may include obtaining or attempting to obtain aid from law enforcement or
    medical personnel. A person who violates this subdivision is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.
    Subd. 2. General immunity from liability. (a) A person who, without compensation or the
    expectation of compensation, renders emergency care, advice, or assistance at the scene of an
    emergency or during transit to a location where professional medical care can be rendered, is
    not liable for any civil damages as a result of acts or omissions by that person in rendering the
    emergency care, advice, or assistance, unless the person acts in a willful and wanton or reckless
    manner in providing the care, advice, or assistance. This subdivision does not apply to a person
    rendering emergency care, advice, or assistance during the course of regular employment, and
    receiving compensation or expecting to receive compensation for rendering the care, advice, or
    assistance.
    G17, G26

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil...

  14. #103
    Senior Member Array bbqgrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    In Delaware, East of the Mason Dixon Line.
    Posts
    797
    Quote Originally Posted by packin45 View Post
    We had an incident almost exactly like the original post (a group of guys assaulting someone) last summer....here's a link to the subsequent discussion:
    twincitiescarry.com :: View topic - Yet another one more reason>

    Note that one person thought that even the father may not have had legal standing to draw, until he was actually assaulted.

    This is a bit different not entirely but a bit. To start the daughter would never have been justified in the use of deadly force for a smack on the butt. The father, escalated the situation by confronting the punks granted it was only verbal confrontation regardless it was confrontation. More importantly the father did not leave the area (duty to retreat), prior to the attack. So the similarity is if you are an observer; but not until after the attack starts, at that point I think your laws would probably allow you to come to the aid of the father including using deadly force.

    I wish I had a copy of your statutes, I suspect they read nearly identically to ours. I think your instructor may have gone a bit overboard in emphasizing duty to retreat (we have that law also). Anyway it has been a good discussion. Naturally, I am not a lawyer, but I feel it is my obligation to stay as informed as possible on this subject so, this is purely opinion.


    Kindest Regards,,
    "To believe that social reforms can eradicate evil altogether is to forget that evil is a protean creature, forever assuming a new shape when deprived of an old one." - SAT

    Never argue with an idiot - they'll bring you down to their level then beat you with experience.

  15. #104
    Member Array JoeyD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Boerne, Texas
    Posts
    92
    Apply the substitution test: If it was one of your loved ones (child, spouse, sibling, parent, grandparent) on the street being brutally beaten and you were not there to defend them with tooth, nail or firearm, who wouldn't want a Good Samaritan to do whatever it took to stop the thugs?

  16. #105
    Member Array packin45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    In limbo
    Posts
    388
    Quote Originally Posted by bbqgrill View Post
    This is a bit different not entirely but a bit. To start the daughter would never have been justified in the use of deadly force for a smack on the butt. The father, escalated the situation by confronting the punks granted it was only verbal confrontation regardless it was confrontation. More importantly the father did not leave the area (duty to retreat), prior to the attack. So the similarity is if you are an observer; but not until after the attack starts, at that point I think your laws would probably allow you to come to the aid of the father including using deadly force.

    I wish I had a copy of your statutes, I suspect they read nearly identically to ours. I think your instructor may have gone a bit overboard in emphasizing duty to retreat (we have that law also). Anyway it has been a good discussion. Naturally, I am not a lawyer, but I feel it is my obligation to stay as informed as possible on this subject so, this is purely opinion.


    Kindest Regards,,

    You're right about the assault scenario...but you could spin that fifty different ways, and without a law on the books authorizing the use of deadly force by someone in defense of a third person, like Arizona's, it's all subject to a grand jury's interpretation.

    A lot of people are shocked at our laws regarding the justifiable use of deadly force; the truth is, we have so many liberals in office here that it's a near-miracle we became shall-issue. There was a 'stand your ground' type bill introduced here last year, but it didn't get far.

    It's definately been an interesting discussion
    G17, G26

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil...

Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 3456789 LastLast

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
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Lunatic Hit and Run on a cyclist
    By packinnova in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: July 18th, 2014, 09:38 AM
  2. 10 people indicted for beating man unconscious.
    By socal2310 in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: August 2nd, 2010, 08:35 PM
  3. Bad - Two Teens Beat and Rob 81 yr old Man [merged]
    By lance22 in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: April 3rd, 2009, 09:15 AM
  4. Bad : 2 cases of teens, killing other teens
    By Eagleks in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: October 16th, 2008, 09:59 PM
  5. Newbie from Kalamazoo, MI
    By HermanNelson in forum New Members Introduce Yourself
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: October 1st, 2006, 01:47 AM

Search tags for this page

kalamazoo area nra instructors
,

kalamazoo bestiality

,

kalamazoo biker attacked

,
northside kalamazoo white shirts gangs
,
teen killed in kalamazoo hayes park
Click on a term to search for related topics.