Real scenario from the news: License holder pulls gun during Black Friday melee

This is a discussion on Real scenario from the news: License holder pulls gun during Black Friday melee within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Originally Posted by suntzu Yes, we all know someone can be killed with one punch. Evidently HE was not killed and apparently not even injured ...

Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 147
Like Tree192Likes

Thread: Real scenario from the news: License holder pulls gun during Black Friday melee

  1. #31
    Member Array d2jlking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    419
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    Yes, we all know someone can be killed with one punch. Evidently HE was not killed and apparently not even injured (enough) for someone to be arrested. EDIT: Just noticed the guy fled.......oops
    Sorry, I know "I wasn't there" line but I don't see myself drawing my firearm in this circumstance. I have had guys 6 inches taller than me threaten me and I never felt he need to pull my weapon.

    Folks seriously need to learn less than lethal means of handling encounters (H2H or pepper spray or whatever.).
    Suntzu- what if he isn't physically able to protect himself with his hands? What if he doesn't have pepper spray? I also wouldn't have pulled my gun. But then again, I would have been trying my best to give him some of his own medicine. Either way, no one attacks me with impunity.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #32
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,658
    Quote Originally Posted by ntkb View Post
    He pulls the gun after he is attacked, not before, if he was to use mace or pepper spray and it got other people a law suit may have been pending. I disagree with you completely, several people have been killed with just one punch and also others have had severe damage done to their person, losing an eye and what not.
    It’s high time people learned to be polite in public, my guess is the next time he thinks of smacking someone he will think twice.
    Re: part in bold. Come on now. Which outcome would cause you more problems? 1) You shoot
    a bystander; 2) you pepper a bystander. So you get sued for pepper spraying a bystander, so what?
    They have to show damages. OK, you get to pay for EMS to wash their eyes and a few grand for
    emotional upset. Compare that to putting a bullet in an innocent bystander who then runs up
    a $500,000 ICU bill, loses his ability to support his family, and wants more money than you can
    earn in your lifetime-- plus all the insurance money you have with your renter's or home owner's insurance.

    Be practical. There is no comparison to your legal risk when choosing a non-lethal response.

    To use and paraphrase your words, it may be high time people learned to be polite in public, sounds good.
    But it isn't my job or your job (unless you are an LEO) to teach others that lesson at the point of a gun.
    Last edited by Hopyard; November 23rd, 2012 at 04:00 PM. Reason: added a ? to correct punctuation.
    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

  4. #33
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,658
    Quote Originally Posted by d2jlking View Post
    I read the info. Thanks for providing that. Is that a Texas law? As for the last sentence.......is that true in practice? You can't just retaliate? If someone punches me, I can't punch them back? That doesn't sound correct.
    Yes what I posted sans my comments is from the Texas penal code.

    With the explanation that I am not a lawyer, it is my understanding that you can not retaliate.
    You can defend, not retaliate. Those are two entirely different things. It isn't your job
    to teach someone a lesson. Call the cops and make the assault complaint.
    d2jlking 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. #34
    Moderator
    Array RETSUPT99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    44,680
    Let me say that unless I was there, it's hard to decide how to react. I will say that pepper spray works very well...let me explain.
    I have commented many times about people buying pepper spray getting an extra canister to experiment a bit. One should always know how the product being carried works.
    I say this because you may very well get some back in the face...can you handle it, or will you become a better victim?
    I always do this with new purchases, and I have tried them all.

    Just recently I purchased two 4oz cans of pepper spray, not for self-defense, but rather to assist me in training my new pup not to dig. He's in a contest with the dog next door to see who is the best digger on the fence line.
    Well, I waited until he was away from the newest hole...I sprayed the 'fog' all over the bottom of the fence and in the dirt. It worked for a short time. My Rhodesian (4 mos) came back to the fence and quickly left shaking his head. It only kept him away for the day...oh well.
    In the process, a bit of wind caused a meeting of the pepper fog and my face...whoa, that stuff will take your breath away. Effective in a Wally World waiting line? I think SO.
    The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.

    ***********************************
    Certified Glock Armorer
    NRA Life Member[/B]

  6. #35
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,961
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Not so fast:

    PC 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
    (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
    (A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
    (B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
    (C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

    1A Is irrelevant to the situation
    1B Is also irrelevant to the situation
    1C Says nothing about simple assault, and is irrelevant.

    Per this section (which deals with use of force in general, not lethal force specifically) there
    does not appear to be a presumption that force can be used in response to what occurred.
    Simply being punched doesn't create the presumptions which are defined; at least
    that is my reading of this. Put another way, you can't just engage in a fight if you can walk away.
    You can't just retaliate.
    Yes and no.
    All the subsections describe is where the use of force is presumed to be reasonable. That means if someone is committing one of those offenses against you when you use force the LEOs, prosecutors, and courts are to operate, until proven otherwise, that you are in the right. The absence of simple assault in the statute as cited only means that until things get sorted out you are considered to be a bad guy too.

    So in the absence of the factors that would give us the presumption of reasonableness we revert to the basic 9.31 (a)
    PC 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.
    So what we have now is a situation where the LEO invovled and the prosecutors get to assess based on their knowledge and experience if your actions were reasonable. If they think you were unreasonable, the question will ultimately go to jury for their opinion. If they believe you were reasonable (as in this case) you get to walk.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  7. #36
    Senior Member Array ntkb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Detroit Michigan
    Posts
    673
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Re: part in bold. Come on now. Which outcome would cause you more problems? 1) You shoot
    a bystander; 2) you pepper a bystander. So you get sued for pepper spraying a bystander, so what?
    They have to show damages. OK, you get to pay for EMS to wash their eyes and a few grand for
    emotional upset. Compare that to putting a bullet in an innocent bystander who then runs up
    a $500,000 ICU bill, loses his ability to support his family, and wants more money than you can
    earn in your lifetime-- plus all the insurance money you have with your renter's or home owner's insurance.

    Be practical. There is no comparison to your legal risk when choosing a non-lethal response.

    To use and paraphrase your words, it may be high time people learned to be polite in public, sounds good.
    But it isn't my job or your job (unless you are an LEO) to teach others that lesson at the point of a gun.
    Sticking with what we know as what’s in the article, the assailant left the scene after the gun was pulled. No shots were fired. No one hurt, beyond the fellow that got hit. I am thinking pointing a can of pepper spray wouldn’t have gotten the same result.

    And this is exactly how people behaving badly learn what society will tolerate and what it won’t. It’s not my job, it’s everyone’s job, Including those on jury’s, if it ever gets that far.

    I didn’t get my shooting skills from the NYPD so if I did shoot, I tend to fling the lead to the intended area, not everywhere but.
    1911 when a follow up shot just isn't an option

  8. #37
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,658
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    Yes and no.
    All the subsections describe is where the use of force is presumed to be reasonable. That means if someone is committing one of those offenses against you when you use force the LEOs, prosecutors, and courts are to operate, until proven otherwise, that you are in the right. The absence of simple assault in the statute as cited only means that until things get sorted out you are considered to be a bad guy too.

    So in the absence of the factors that would give us the presumption of reasonableness we revert to the basic 9.31 (a)

    So what we have now is a situation where the LEO invovled and the prosecutors get to assess based on their knowledge and experience if your actions were reasonable. If they think you were unreasonable, the question will ultimately go to jury for their opinion. If they believe you were reasonable (as in this case) you get to walk.
    Which is pretty much what I wrote in post 28: "It all depends on what is reasonable in the circumstance. How many here
    really want to trust their freedom to "it all depends," and the 20/20 hindsight of others?
    NOT ME."

    The issue related to "reasonableness" not discussed yet is "immediately necessary to."
    Pulling the gun after the punch may or may not have been immediately necessary to stop a
    second punch. "We 'wasn't' der."

    What concerns me very much is the number of participants who seem to think a retaliatory punch is OK.
    oneshot 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

  9. #38
    Moderator
    Array Bark'n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    9,917
    Quote Originally Posted by d2jlking View Post
    Very good post. Well stated and thought out. I have a serious question though: You say in this case you wouldn't have drawn a gun. Fair enough. My question is....would you hit him back? Because if you do, you are now probably going to be involved in some mutual combat. He could maybe wrestle your gun free. He may get the upper hand in the fight and begin pummeling you, making it impossible for you to retrieve and use your gun. Please understand, I'm not being argumentative. I just am not sure how I would handle the situation myself. I can't blame the guy for drawing his weapon. At what point is it NOT OKAY for someone to infringe on the rights of others to live in peace?
    This is a situation where witnesses can have a large and decisive impact in what the end result is going to be, legally speaking. And that this kind of chaotic, almost "mob-frenzied" crowds like those encountered at Black Friday events it can be hard to find good witnesses. Almost everyone is going to have a different interpretation. Most are not going to stick around and get involved. In fact, they are going to flee because they don't want their "holiday itinerary" further disrupted or complicated than it is already.

    Now, of course I'm going to defend myself. I'm not going to stand there and let a complete stranger beat on me. So my involvement in what caused the guy to hit me in the first place is what's going to determine whether the police see me as a completely innocent guy defending myself, or whether my actions are part of what caused a "mutual combat" situation. In a case of "mutual combat" you're not going to be able to claim self defense. And that's where this frenzied mob scene at the check-out lane can really put a person in a bad situation. You have no reliable idea what the witnesses are going to see, or say.

    In the end... Why people who believe they are prudent and responsible ccw permit holders continue to put themselves in situations like this is beyond me. Because the evidence would seem to be a little contradictory. Going to a Black Friday event to save a few bucks is a clear violation of "The Rule of 3 Stupids." If you willingly put yourself in a situation where stupid people are swarming all around you doing stupid things, you can't act surprised when a "no-win" bad situation pops up out of nowhere.
    Hopyard and d2jlking like this.
    -Bark'n
    Semper Fi


    "The gun is the great equalizer... For it is the gun, that allows the meek to repel the monsters; Whom are bigger, stronger and without conscience, prey on those who without one, would surely perish."

  10. #39
    Member Array Tayopo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alamos, Son, Mexico
    Posts
    190
    Ladies & gentsmen: a question, what would the law be if pou pulled the pistol to use as a modified club and whopped him him with it's side, but never actually pointed the muzzle at him? Especially if you were about 150 # and he was over 230? This factor alone could lead to a great reducton of a facial reconstruction.

    Don Jose de La Mancha
    msgt/ret likes this.

  11. #40
    Member Array TheGiant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by d2jlking View Post
    One more point....."people who get the crap stomped out of them".............

    if you are getting the "crap stomped out of you" would you feel justified in pulling your gun? At what point in the assault do you make the determination that you must stop the assault by force?
    That is my question too, by the time you think "this needs to stop" the next blow lands and you are out cold or worse. I will just not wait until I am bleeding to put a stop to my being assaulted. If my family is with me my fuse is even shorter, because I can not protect them if I am incapacitated. If pulling the gun stops the aggression fine, but I am not counting on it.
    d2jlking likes this.

  12. #41
    Member Array linuss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    DFW
    Posts
    302
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Not so fast:

    PC 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE.
    Try the other section that pertains to it:

    Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.
    mcp1810, ep1953 and 9BPLE like this.

  13. #42
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,658
    Quote Originally Posted by Tayopo View Post
    Ladies & gentsmen: a question, what would the law be if pou pulled the pistol to use as a modified club and whopped him him with it's side, but never actually pointed the muzzle at him? Especially if you were about 150 # and he was over 230? This factor alone could lead to a great reducton of a facial reconstruction.

    Don Jose de La Mancha
    The section of the penal code I cited (which applies only to TX, YMMV) was as follows: " the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force"

    Someone else pointed out that pointing a gun would not be considered assault with a deadly
    weapon. Now, what I don't know is if whacking someone with it would be considered assault
    with a deadly weapon the same way using a flashlight might be so construed. I think probably
    yes.

    And as for your scenario, I would in that specific prefer an upper cut with the steel contacting
    the lower jaw. More chance of it going unnoticed and unblocked by a larger adversary.
    Oral surgeons do get expensive though.

    Good question Mr. La Mancha, coffee?
    Tayopo 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

  14. #43
    VIP Member Array Eagleks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    7,731
    Wait... wait.... I have to stop laughing long enough to be able to type.....

    the image of the guy "hiding behind the refrigerator and then running off" ..... LMAO .... guess that spot in the line wasn't so important after all. ......


    no complaintant. .... no charges.... simple as that.

    Someone has to have felt "threatened" and / or "in fear of their life" ..... but if they're gone and can't say ..... hey, they're gone.
    I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --- Will Rogers ---
    Chief Justice John Roberts : "I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."

  15. #44
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,658
    Quote Originally Posted by linuss View Post
    Try the other section that pertains to it:

    Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.
    Part in bold must be met, and the above only deals with the fact that the action described
    won't constitute the use of deadly force, not whether or not it might constitute legitimate
    use of force. That part is dealt with in the penal code section I posted.
    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

  16. #45
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,658
    Quote Originally Posted by Eagleks View Post
    Wait... wait.... I have to stop laughing long enough to be able to type.....

    the image of the guy "hiding behind the refrigerator and then running off" ..... LMAO .... guess that spot in the line wasn't so important after all. ......


    no complaintant. .... no charges.... simple as that.

    Someone has to have felt "threatened" and / or "in fear of their life" ..... but if they're gone and can't say ..... hey, they're gone.
    Uh, not so sure you are correct. Cops come and there is no complainant alright because he ran off.
    BUT, in the course of talking to witnesses they could determine that a crime was committed, even
    if the victim is nowhere to be found. The absence of the victim doesn't mean no crime happened.
    If 20 people are saying they saw someone point a gun at an innocent who then ran off, a crime
    was committed. I would guess, but don't know, that the witness statements could add up
    to probable cause for an arrest and charge. Just my guess, IANAL.
    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

Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 1234567 ... 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
  •  

Search tags for this page

black friday melee

,

powered by mybb african american art for sale

,

powered by mybb bra training for men

,

powered by mybb drawing head

,
powered by mybb free legal forms wa
,

powered by mybb head injury attorneys

,

powered by mybb michigan state

,
powered by mybb nevada business license
,

powered by mybb post falls animal control

,

powered by mybb real numbers

,

powered by mybb sell your art online

,

powered by mybb texas state

Click on a term to search for related topics.