5 years of training paid off...

[bikerdoc]

I am kind of with scatylobo on this, sort of. It may have gone down like that but:

5 yrs of training and he hesitates to call 911 imediately? Do we not teach and preach that first? So should he. And as Fred said keep the line open. All it would take is one nieghbor to call in a man with a gun call, now he is the bad guy. He who calls first is the good guy. Been to too many call like that.

Why all the symathy for the BG and girl friend? Maybe I am jaded from too many years on the streets. I am willing to write this one off as personal opinion. I dont have a whole lot of compassion for drunk/drugged, public bat wielding people. Especially if it is my uncle. As for the girlfriend, bad choices have consequences.
I had learned all about adrenalin dump in Viet Nam so on the job I had an advantage of having experienced it. It is a wild ride I cant teach or explain until you experience it.

Would I have dropped him? On the job, yes. As a retired civilian, now, and at my age, I would be hesitant for the facts presented. Speculation on my part but, tough guy Uncle could have closed the distance quickly and tied him up and nephew might have been able to help without drawing weapon.

Just my take on a well written story that is probably based in truth, I wasnt there, dont know anything more than what was written, and frankly dont care, and I am not going to respond anymore, like I said just my .02.
The take away here for S&T is call 911.

 

[Kleanbore]

The take away here for S&T is call 911.

Yep.

And--don't talk about it afterward.

 

[Trent]

I agree.

If he'd done that in Illinois, he would have been charged and found guilty of assault with a deadly weapon. (Whereas, if he'd taken the shot and the man was clearly about to brain someone, he would have been in the clear.. probably. Illinois is a bit screwy, since we have both castle doctrine AND negligent self defense laws).

 

[Buddy Rabbit]

After 911 was called, it's a good thing the police were dissuaded from responding. She could have lost her kids.
“No, I appear to have the situation under control”

Sorry. If you call 911, the cops are coming.

Yet she keeps bringing this loser, psycho, drug-addict into their lives. She SHOULD lose her kids.

 

[JustinJ]

I would have filed a report partly in case the conflict escalates at a later date. I had an altercation a while back that luckily did not go further than it did but i still called after the fact in case my would be attacker came back at a later time. While i can understand sympathizing with the woman who feared the loss of her kids i'm not so sure their current situation is any better. However, not to disparage the writer but we are only hearing one side of a story. For example, it sounds as if they were on the bat wielder's property. Had he instructed the uncle to leave at some point? If so they were trespassing. That does not justify attacking with a bat however drawing a gun while trespassing likely changes things, legally speaking. Personally, i think the uncle's parole status is what motivated him not to involve the police. Aren't people on parole generally prohibited from associating with known criminals?

 

[Jeff White]

Trent said;

If he'd done that in Illinois, he would have been charged and found guilty of assault with a deadly weapon.

We arrest people who are being held at gun point by a homeowner all the time. No one ever considered charging the homeowner with "Assault with a deadly weapon." In fact there is no such charge in the Illinois Compiled Statues. The proper charge would be Aggravated Assault.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...hapterID=53&SeqStart=21300000&SeqEnd=23200000

(720 ILCS 5/12-2) (from Ch. 38, par. 12-2)
(Text of Section from P.A. 96-1551)
Sec. 12-2. Aggravated assault.
(a) Offense based on location of conduct. A person commits aggravated assault when he or she commits an assault against an individual who is on or about a public way, public property, a public place of accommodation or amusement, or a sports venue.
(b) Offense based on status of victim. A person commits aggravated assault when, in committing an assault, he or she knows the individual assaulted to be any of the following:
(1) A physically handicapped person or a person 60 years of age or older and the assault is without legal justification.
(2) A teacher or school employee upon school grounds or grounds adjacent to a school or in any part of a building used for school purposes.
(3) A park district employee upon park grounds or grounds adjacent to a park or in any part of a building used for park purposes.
(4) A peace officer, community policing volunteer, fireman, private security officer, emergency management worker, emergency medical technician, or utility worker:
(i) performing his or her official duties;
(ii) assaulted to prevent performance of his or her official duties; or
(iii) assaulted in retaliation for performing his or her official duties.
(5) A correctional officer or probation officer:
(i) performing his or her official duties;
(ii) assaulted to prevent performance of his or her official duties; or
(iii) assaulted in retaliation for performing his or her official duties.
(6) A correctional institution employee, Department of Human Services employee, Department of Human Services officer or employee of a subcontractor of the Department of Human Services supervising or controlling sexually dangerous persons or sexually violent persons:
(i) performing his or her official duties;
(ii) assaulted to prevent performance of his or her official duties; or
(iii) assaulted in retaliation for performing his or her official duties.
(7) An employee of the State of Illinois, a municipal corporation therein, or a political subdivision thereof, performing his or her official duties.
(8) A transit employee performing his or her official duties, or a transit passenger.
(9) A sports official or coach actively participating in any level of athletic competition within a sports venue, on an indoor playing field or outdoor playing field, or within the immediate vicinity of such a facility or field.
(c) Offense based on use of firearm, device, or motor vehicle. A person commits aggravated assault when, in committing an assault, he or she does any of the following:
(1) Uses a deadly weapon, an air rifle as defined in the Air Rifle Act, or any device manufactured and designed to be substantially similar in appearance to a firearm, other than by discharging a firearm.
(2) Discharges a firearm, other than from a motor vehicle.
(3) Discharges a firearm from a motor vehicle.
(4) Wears a hood, robe, or mask to conceal his or her identity.
(5) Knowingly and without lawful justification shines or flashes a laser gun sight or other laser device attached to a firearm, or used in concert with a firearm, so that the laser beam strikes near or in the immediate vicinity of any person.
(6) Uses a firearm, other than by discharging the firearm, against a peace officer, community policing volunteer, fireman, private security officer, emergency management worker, emergency medical technician, employee of a police department, employee of a sheriff's department, or traffic control municipal employee:
(i) performing his or her official duties;
(ii) assaulted to prevent performance of his or her official duties; or
(iii) assaulted in retaliation for performing his or her official duties.

Illinois has very good self defense laws despite the anti-gun attitude the Chicago mob brings into government.

What the writer claims happened, if it happened as claimed would definitely be covered by:

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...ChapterID=53&SeqStart=8600000&SeqEnd=10100000

(720 ILCS 5/Art. 7 heading)
ARTICLE 7. JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE; EXONERATION

(720 ILCS 5/7-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-1)
Sec. 7-1. Use of force in defense of person.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.
(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7-4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93-832, eff. 7-28-04.)

The force used, pointing the weapon at the man with the bat was enough to stop the attack. There is nothing in this statute saying that "force" means firing the weapon.

That said, I don't believe the story. It is either fiction or some fictionalized version of a real event. Way too many things in the narrative are just not right. The 911 operator taking a call of a fight where one of the combatants was armed with a baseball bat and then just accepting the caller's word that "He appeared to have the situation under control". and didn't dispatch any officers to the scene. That's just one of several inconsistencies.

 

[BullfrogKen]

I agree with Jeff's impression of the story.

 

[Beaux Nehr]

I was not afraid, and was completely prepared and capable to take up to 4 lives had anyone chosen to take the situation in that direction.

The self-indulgent tone of the entire story was just... off-putting.