Gang Bangers and Your CCW

Status
Not open for further replies.
I will not encourage vigilanteism, as a professional instructor, I simply can't.

Now as far as the Seal incident goes, there would have been no justice, the perps would have continued to prey on the inocent and sooner or later someone would have died at the hands of these pukes.

The indivdual that took care of things (and no proof one way or another has ever surfaced or likely ever will) was a case of justice being served.

The little town has remained Gang free. Even the Chief of Police will not look any further. The pain is his rear is gone.

My joy at seeing this happen, is one of hope for the good guys, rather than one of saying Yeah, lets all go hunting pukes.

A professional, that gets paid plenty to do this very same thing for Uncle Sam probably saved inocent folks and the taxpayers countless $$$$

We all know that police have their hand tied when it comes to Gangs. Well this time justice came quietly and took care of business.

I still say, dont go off and start a fight with a Ganger and then try to claim self defense.

The issue with the Seal was far different. There was likely not a confrontation, but rather a "reconing" that took place very quietly.

There was no battle, no gun shots, no bloody evidence, nothing, but the pukes went away.

Please dont read into this more than is there.

I hate seeing good people hurt and pukes walk away with little that can be done.

So when justice is served, you accept it gladly.

Respectfully
 
All great responses troops

Consider this, in this country, far too much time is spent prosecuting people who are fed up sick and tired of being hurt by criminals and finally take a stand and draw a line in the sand.

Think about it.

Snowy
 
Back in Illinois, the person that moved toward another person where there was a violent outcome was said to be the aggressor. Not a good legal position.
Best,
Rob
 
Back in Illinois, the person that moved toward another person where there was a violent outcome was said to be the aggressor.
Click to expand...

Where does it say that in the Illinois Compiled Statutes? In 23 years as a police officer here in Illinois, I can tell you that the totality of the circumstances, as best as it can be determined will decide who the aggressor is.
 
Consider this, in this country, far too much time is spent prosecuting people who are fed up sick and tired of being hurt by criminals and finally take a stand and draw a line in the sand.
Click to expand...
Something interesting about having your hands tied while the criminals use the system.

Way back when I was a city Policeman I was known to be "gun person".
Of all people, a Catholic Priest looked me up to buy a gun. (a completely legal FTF transaction, but no legal carry in that state, still none in that East Coast state).

I asked the Priest, "You understand this gun is for possibly shooting someone in your defense or someone else's defense and if you carry it you are breaking the law?"

Priest, "Yes I understand".

Me, "Pardon me for asking, but if you shoot a bad guy it's very possible you will kill him. As a Priest what do you think about that?"

Priest, "God doesn't mean for us to let ourselves be murdered".

I sold him the gun.:D




.
 
I've read this thread in its totality, many thanks to those who've posted, including Mods! Having read these posts, and rereading some posts to totally comprehend their meaning, I have a totally better understanding of how situations can go South in a heartbeat, and whether to bring gunplay into action. Thanks to all who've posted, hope life is good to all of you and be safe!
 
Hi Jeff,
This was interpreted to me verbally back in the late 60's/ early 70's by the guys from my local PD. I was standing in the PD when the 911 calls came in. I believe the entire incident played out before the PD could get there.

The incident occurred where there was a confrontation between two guys. One was armed with a straight razor, the other with a shotgun. The fellow with the shotgun was reported to have initially left the scene of the fight and retrieved the shotgun. This was the behavior that led to the notion of him being the aggressor.

The initial incident reportedly seems to have been settled, as the fellow with the shotgun then turned away to unload. While observing this, the VCA with the straight razor made a move on the person with the shotgun and lost. The guys at the PD were up set as a slow moving freight train prevented them from getting to the scene as early as possible. I doubt they were citing a statute, this was just their notion of how the court would interpret what happened. The defense for the subject with the shotgun would have been the notion that he was no longer the aggressor once he turned away. I'll be interested to hear your insight. I have no idea how this was decided BTW.
Best,
Rob
 
Last edited:
The incident occurred where there was a confrontation between two guys. One was armed with a straight razor, the other with a shotgun. The fellow with the shotgun was reported to have initially left the scene of the fight and retrieved the shotgun. This was the behavior that led to the notion of him being the aggressor.
Click to expand...

Well that explains it. The fight was over when one party left the scene and went to get his his shotgun. It became a new incident when he returned with his shotgun and yes he was the aggressor. And that part is in the Illinois complied statutes:

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...&ChapterID=53&SeqStart=8200000&SeqEnd=9700000
(720 ILCS 5/7‑4) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑4)
Sec. 7‑4. Use of force by aggressor.
The justification described in the preceding Sections of this Article is not available to a person who:
(a) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(b) Initially provokes the use of force against himself, with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant; or
(c) Otherwise initially provokes the use of force against himself, unless:
(1) Such force is so great that he reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, and that he has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(2) In good faith, he withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)
Click to expand...

If you read (c) (2) (italics are mine) that by allowing the man who later returned with the shotgun to disengage and withdraw, he was ending the encounter. When the other party returned with the shotgun, he became the aggressor.

You simply don't disengage from a fight, arm yourself then return and start the fight again. The threat against you ended when your attacker allowed you to disengage. If you return and start fighting again, then you become the aggressor.

It wasn't turning away to unload, it was leaving the fight to get the shotgun and then returning....
 
230therapy said:
That's just stupid.

You're not facilitating anything by signing off on the class for a CCW. We both know it's entirely their responsibility to follow the law.

You will have explained the law to the students and the conditions that qualify for use of deadly force in self-defense.

If they're going to murder someone, it's not because of anything you did or did not do in your class.
Click to expand...

9mm+ said:
I completely and utterly disagree with your logic, and we can agree to amicably disagree on this. Calling my reasoning "stupid" was beyond the pale. Of course I explain the law to students and test them on that, but if I know in ADVANCE that a student's
STATED intent is to PRE-EMPTIVELY shoot someone and that a CCW would facilitate that act, then there is no way I would certify that student, plain and simple.

If you want to have a rational discussion about this, then fine, but please refrain from insulting language. I did extend that courtesy to you.
Click to expand...

Your "logic" is merely an emotional response to something stupid an ignorant guy said. He said something silly and there is plenty of opportunity there for you to explain and demonstrate the consequences of such actions.

You have the opportunity to set the guy straight. Do so rather than just assume the worst.

If the guy is going to commit murder, he's not going to wait around for a concealed carry permit. The better plan would to avoid being on the state record as a permit holder since that flags him as a gun owner.

You know what I am saying is true because we've seen the data on crimes committed by permit holders. We know that permit holders have declared themselves responsible citizens by getting the permit, and we know that they protect that permit.
 
Last edited:
I do NOT advocate "going after"..I.e.looking for them AFTeR an incident with payback in mind....OTOH there is NO ONE I will not KILL or get an A for effort if I am attacked/menaced/assaulted right there on the spot...if I am still functional seconds into "game on "he or they will NOT be...and my caveat OS that nothing I do would transgress the minimum necessary force on my part to break off the attack/survive or defend a third party.if the dirtbag dies or winds up needing a cane,well life can be hard.....and short of you ate stupid.
 
He is of the mindset that he can just lay in waiting and when the pukes come out some dark night, that he can exact revenge and just have a field day, and scare the heck out of these clowns.
Click to expand...

Sounds like he wants to imitate Death Wish.
 
Sounds like he wants to imitate Death Wish.
Click to expand...

Look...people say stupid stuff in classes. In my first class, someone said the old "drag them into your house" advice. The instructor was a Texas deputy and he politely addressed the issue. There were no accusations of any sort.
 
In my first class, someone said the old "drag them into your house" advice.
Click to expand...

I hear that way too often.

To put my advice into perspective concerning what not to do, I bring up the fact that their main goal is their safety and the safety of others (family, friends, etc.) as well as avoidance of legal troubles, and that revenge missions, alteration of a crime scenes, and a general failure to avoid trouble are contrary to these goals. It's got to be about priorities, not pride and egotism.
 
have to agree with M2 Carbine on this one. Sometimes we're put in less than perfect situations with less than perfect ways of handling them. Sometimes you have to sacrifice to protect what you love.
Click to expand...
Right or wrong, M2 Carbine has my full support and agreement as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

P
  • Locked
Gang Banger Sign Language Interpreter?
2 3 4 5
Replies
111
Views
6K
Betty
B
S
  • Locked
Problems with gangs and gang members
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
8K
carguy2244
C
C
  • Locked
A word on multiple attackers
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
fallout mike
fallout mike
S
  • Locked
Morally obligated?
2 3 4 5
Replies
110
Views
4K
TheLastBoyScout
T
B
  • Locked
LEO holster/cuffs undone on purpose?
2
Replies
25
Views
909
Rexster
Rexster
Back
Top