Identifying the "real" bad guy in an attack

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lupine

Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2003
Messages
151
Location
too far from the coffee machine.
A couple weeks ago, I was working at my desk at home and I heard a bunch of yelling. I grabbed my phone and went to my front window, and there were three men in their 30s chasing a skinny pre-teen kid down my street. Two of the adults caught him and pinned him down; the terrified kid was yelling "Leave me alone! Help!". He was trying to loose himself by flailing about, but the three men were big guys. I could tell the adults were hurting the child far more than the child was able to reciprocate.

I called 911, and reported the incident, describing the force used by the adults. As I was doing that, I noticed three other neighbors (friends of mine) coming out of their own houses. About this time, the kid broke away. An early model Honda came speeding up the street; the kid flagged it down, jumped in and took off. I noted the license plate and repeated it to the dispatcher. I told them to send an officer immediately. The dispatcher then said that earlier, they'd received a call about a kid matching the boy's description in an incident when he had reportedly been beating up a smaller child.

I hung up. The three adults, across the street from my neighbors and I, began yelling at us. They told us what they'd seen the kid do to the younger child around the corner, and they thought we should have helped them restrain the 12-year old. One of my neighbors yelled back, "All I saw, Mister, was three big guys hurting a little kid." I had to agree with my friend.

Later, this neighbor (who also holds a CCL and has done quite a bit to help me train) and I discussed how this kind of scenario could have gone bad had either of us chose to involve our weapons in the situation. Neither of us felt we would have been forced to fire upon the adults, but it made me think about how accessible my guns are in the safe in another part of the house.

It also made us really think about third-party scenarios. Even though these guys--each of whom had pro-wrestler builds--were being perhaps a bit excessive with the kid, they were only trying to hold him at the scene. Of course, one could argue that the kid in question was probably a whole lot bigger and more capable than the 8-year-old he'd supposedly been harrassing. My point is, you never know what's going on when you arrive in the middle of a melee.

And by the way. No officer ever showed up to take our report.
 
No, I guess I should have added that one of my neighbors yelled at the guys to back off. The guy with the most control over the little kid got a little freaked by his growing audience. And the little kid had a LOT of wiggle power.
 
IMO adding a gun into a situation where you don't know exactly what is going on is dangerous. I would have a hard time deciding what to do in a third party situation. If it was a situation where the little kid was a victim and I did nothing I would feel like I should have done something. At the same time letting an offender go free is still not good.
 
I am not the Lone Ranger. Unless someone is attacking me specifically, or I am 100% certain of the situation (something that likely would never, ever happen IMO) I am going to be a good witness.
 
One of the reasons I sometimes never read posts in this forum is that someone will post that they would have drawn there gun and held the "suspect" until police arrived and shot him if he tried anything. I think you have hit on something that most people don't think about. In the heat of the moment you don't know who is the bad guy and how is the good guy and when the PD get's there anyone holding a gun and not wearing a PD uniform automatically goes into the bad guy column. By the way you did the right thing IMHO.

Also Matt, doesn't surprise me a that the 30 year olds couldn't hold him. I once had a 5 year kick me off of him him I was restraining him (at the direction of the ED doctor) in our local ED. Kids have surprising strength especially when scared.
 
Restraining somebody w/o causing injury is more difficult than it would appear. I 've worked in residential treatment and taken the "passive restraint" training such places require. If the three big guys hadn't minded inflicting some pain and injury on the kid, sure they could have easily kept him at the scene.
 
Things are not always and many times not usually what they seem. Remember, a firearm is lethal force, and may not, must not, be used except against imminent lethal force.
 
Remember, a firearm is lethal force, and may not, must not, be used except against imminent lethal force.

Thats not how it is in all states, TN among them. Here the use of deadly force is authorized to neutralize a threat of death or serious bodily injury. The kid seemed to be under such a threat. I personally agree that Lupide did the right thing and I would have too, probably.
Here we had a case where a CCW went into a florist shop and saw the BG robbing the cashier at knife point. When the BG saw him he grabbed the cashier hostage-style. He let her go and ran out the back. The CCW's mistake was to pursue him into the alley and when the BG was cornered and turned on him witht he knife the CCW shot him dead.
Now to me everything was OK until the CCW followed the BG out. He should have stayed there with the clerk until PD arrived. But would I vote to indict or convict him? Not if I had a choice, any choice.
 
In an old video based training system used to train security guards for a high security government facility there was an interesting scenario.

You are patrolling along a dirt road at night when you come across a car parked along the side of the road. You stop your car, radio dispatch, get out and approach the other vehicle. A woman gets out of the vehicle, screaming "Help me!". A man exits the vehicle chasing after her. While your attention is focused on the man, the woman pulls out a pistol and shoots you. Unless you are very fast, and paying attention to what is going on, and can get a well placed shot off quick enough.

Things are not always what they seem.

I have witnessed folks using wives, girlfriends, and children as distractions.

Always pay attention to everything, and have eyes in the back of your head.
 
What is that they say? Every bullet sent downrange has a lawyer attached? Even in a "good" legal shoot, you're going to get sued. I'd hate to think what would happen if shots were fired at say, an undercover cop. :uhoh:

You guys did well.

Tim
 
Never assume. You only know who is the BG if YOU saw HIM commit the crime. Here's an actual case -BG with gun takes hostage down the street. Cops are called . Cop , of course is looking for BG with gun. At one point hostage gets angry and takes gun from BG. At that point cop arrives sees man on ground and second man standing over him with gun in hand . Cop shoots man with gun [the hostage] !! If you're carrying take it VERY seriously !!
 
It's pretty simple, really.

Don't let your imagination paint a picture for you. Keep your eyes open, watch everyone's hands, and

Don't point a gun at someone unless they've given you a really good reason to do so.*






*They've presented a threat of death or severe bodily harm by having the means and proximity to do so, and are acting in such a way that you're in jeapardy.
 
I think watching from where you were and calling 911 was the only thing you could do...now if they were beating the kid senseless the plan of action would have to change I guess.
 
Joe Demko said:
Restraining somebody w/o causing injury is more difficult than it would appear. I 've worked in residential treatment and taken the "passive restraint" training such places require. If the three big guys hadn't minded inflicting some pain and injury on the kid, sure they could have easily kept him at the scene.

Joe is 100% correct and I will add that one of the VERY first things that kids learn is to act like they are being tortured to death whenever an authority figure lays hands on them. This is NORMAL behavior in my experience and some people never grow out of it. In other words the kid screaming and hollering may well have been completely DISproportianal to the amount of force be excerted.

In fact, considering that the kid got away I am going to guess that it wasnt much force at all.

The fact that the kid apparently got a ride from his buddies in their car tells me that he may well have been more than 12 and that there may have been much more involved than simple bullying of a younger kid.

It's a shame that the bad-guys don't all wear black hats with sinister handlebar mustaches. One really can't jump into the middle of a situation and instinctively know who is the good guy and who is the bad guy. To further complicate matters people rarely fall into such easy categories. A whole lot of encounters involve to bad guys or two good guys, what the heck do you do then? My answer is to be a good witness and try to remember what happens.
 
I could tell you some horror stories of friends I have who have 'come to the rescue' only to find out that...

The sad thing about it is that someone who is in serious need (and that person could be a relative or a close friend) and who someone else can assist may chose not to. Lots of daring, daylight murders take place in my neck of the woods, and the question always asked AFTER is 'Couldn't someone have done something to help, after all the place was packed with people?'

I mean even to get you to the hospital, people are afraid..

Alas, and unfortunately so, I have to take Goalie's perspective. The penalty for being wrong is just too severe!! When the prosecutor finishes playing you off like a Rambo let lose on the street :eek: :cuss:
 
I am firmly of the opinion that I cannot reliably identify "bad guys" on sight in many possible situations. And I don't think anybody else can either, in uniform or out.

The solution is to have the bad guy identify themselves, either via their immediate behavior OR failing that, a few carefully placed words will cause the bad guys to immediately ID themselves.

But I'm getting ahead of myself.

Rule ONE! "Do not get between two parties who each want a piece of each other." This rule is firm. It is the direct result of humans having the ability to see in only one direction at a time. If you are a human, this rule applies to you. If two or more are going at it, shout out "the cops are on their way" if you want but don't dive in.

Rule two: a firmly worded "verbal challenge" to the effect of "what's going on here?!" while approaching will sort out what's up. Let's take the initial example in this thread: three adults have chased and jumped a kid. If one or more of the three adults say something like "this brat tried to snatch a purse" or some similar complaint, your response is "cool, hold him, I'll call the police, don't bruise him up or it'll be impossible to prosecute". If on the other hand their response involves threats and/or foul language directed at you, odds are they're in the wrong but even if they didn't start out that way they're now too out-of-control to make a reasonable citizen's arrest and they need to be stopped before they kill the kid.

I've done this a couple times now...I'm NOT an expert here but in my opinion, with moderate "prodding" on your part bad guys (or out-of-control guys) will ID themselves in VERY short order.
'
 
You know...sad to say...in this day and age, I probably would have assumed the kid was an obnoxious brat, and was getting his just rewards for acting like the aforementioned little brat!

Seriously...MOST 30-something men don't go around beating up kids in bands of 3. I think you did right...call 911, and watch the situation carefully.

A stern..."WHAT IN THE NAME OF SAM HILL IS GOING ON?" may have been in order...then someone with a reasonable tone may have been able to say.

Who knows?...err on the side of caution unless it is YOUR, or YOUR family's tail in the grinder and you have been in the fray since the start.
 
You know, this sounds like a great situation for a video camera. Maybe we should keep a camcorder charged and with a fresh tape by the door in addition to guns at the ready.
 
Well you could have shot all 4 of them in the leg and sorted everything out later :uhoh:.

I am convinced that your course of action was the most appropriate one though. Do you know if the police at least spoke to one of the 30-somethings to find out what happened?
 
I am not the Lone Ranger. Unless someone is attacking me specifically, or I am 100% certain of the situation (something that likely would never, ever happen IMO) I am going to be a good witness.

Amen brother. My CHL is for me and mine. Ideal morals and societal dreams propose that I do the 'right thing' all the time and try to help all I can. Unfortunately, in today's litigious society, a lawyer will twist the 'right thing' into the most retarded thing you could have humanly done at the time. I'm not any good to my wife and kids-to-be if I'm sitting behind bars instead of working on my side of them.

-Teuf
 
I'd say the proper action when you are unsure of the bad guy is to separate ALL the involved persons. Everyone is suspect until the story comes out.
Police do it like this for a reason.

No one is guilty, but anyone at the scene could be. You subdue/separate/calm down every one and sort things out. In a private citizens case, this could mean running out and yelling (keeping the concealed weapon CONCEALED!) and trying to stop the goings-on.
Things may get rowdy, but you must keep your head.

Good job monitoring the situation :cool:
 
You done good.
If no one is getting ready to die, forget the gun.

I'm a good guy and I wear a black hat and have a handlebar moustache.
even the obvious signs don't work.

Sam
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top