Lessons from a confrontation today

[Mike Sr.]

Great subject:

I am 62, 5'7'/200, my jacket size is 50. My work out routine: 3 sets of 15-reps @ 210...when I feel robust I will do all 3 set at 20 reps....and if I don't lift my Dr says the Arth will become worse sooner...

Backing down is NOT in my genes...

But my back is infected with Arthritis -it is wearing me down- and I can not wrap my arms around my 6 yr old grandson and carry him up a flight of 12 stairs w/o being in teary eyed pain.....

AND I have a CCW permit...

A lot of thought here for me to digest and remember...

 

[jeff-10]

Hard to train a puppy, but a poorly trained or anti-social dog is a warning flag about the owner.

I rarely see an aggressive/anti-social dog that is not owned by an aggressive/anti-social person.

 

[JWarren]

I rarely see an aggressive/anti-social dog that is not owned by an aggressive/anti-social person.

I'm probably the rare one you see. While I am assertive, I am very social-- and I have an two anti-social JRTs.

Why? Because we don't have visitors due to where I live. They simply never got the opportunity to get used to people other than my immediate family and in-laws. With those people, they are very social pups. Not so with someone strange to them.

Oh, I am sure I could train them for it, but its usually been easier just to lock them in my study when we have guests.

So you left out one other culprit: Lazy owners like me.




-- John

 

[Deanimator]

They both have family that loves them, even if they are idiots, being an idiot is not a sentence to death.

That is a VERY recent development and one confined almost exclusively to the US and Western Europe.

Rheinhardt Heydrich had family that loved him too.

I look at some of the drooling imbeciles whom I encounter every day and can't help but think that 16,000 years ago, they'd have been eaten by something before they had the opportunity to pass their defective genes along.

As far as "running away" goes, no thanks. I was a lousy runner when I was a 21 year old Infantry officer. I'm 51 now. It just isn't happening.

Ohio law doesn't require me to expose my back to somebody and try to run away. Outside of my home and automobile, it requires me to ATTEMPT to retreat, if I can do so in PERFECT SAFETY. If you attempt to prevent me from retreating, shame on you. Just think of it as the latter day version of poking a giant carnivorous bird in the behind with a sharp stick.

I carry a gun so that I don't HAVE to run. One of the wisest things the Army ever taught me is that "nobody can outrun a bullet." I can't outrun an 18 year old with a knife either. He REALLY doesn't want to put me in the position where I'd need to.

PS - The two ignoramuses caused you a serious injury? How did they compensate you for that injury? An "appology" just don't cut it.

 

[Rockwell1]

I am sure I could train them for it, but its usually been easier just to lock them in my study when we have guests.

J you ARE training your dogs. You're training them not to like strangers by locking them up every time strangers come to your home.

 

[JWarren]

J you ARE training your dogs. You're training them not to like strangers by locking them up every time strangers come to your home.

Probably right, Rockwell.

I guess its been better than them showing their butts. They don't call them Jack Russell Terrorists for nothing....



-- John

 

[rainbowbob]

If I may interrupt this discussion about dog training for a moment...

In the Seattle Times today is an article about a case here in King County, WA that is particularly germane to the previous discussion of whether or not a punch is a felony - and whether or not it might reasonably be considered a potentially fatal assault.

These are excerpts from that article:

The punch that killed gardener James Paroline last summer still sends a disturbing message, his loved ones say. Even the most ordinary doings in life, such as tending flowers in a traffic circle, can place somebody in harm's way.

Now it will lead to prison for his attacker, Brian Keith Brown, who pleaded guilty Monday to second-degree murder, although Brown says he didn't intend to kill.

"To think that when we're out doing something for our neighborhood, to protect, to beautify, to make the community safer for all of us, that an out-of-control individual or individuals will take out their anger on us and strike us down

Paroline, 60, was tending to his plantings at a Rainier Beach intersection July 9 when a confrontation with a group of girls escalated into an assault by Brown. The single punch broke the nose of Paroline, who died from a head injury after his head struck the pavement.

He hit Paroline once and walked away.

Brown's crime qualifies as "felony murder" because it happened during the commission of second-degree assault, a felony.

"Historically, about four to six cases a year in the county arise from a "one-punch homicide," he said.

Most astonishing to me is that a "one-punch homicide" is much more common than I had suspected.

A punch IS a felony assault (at least here). One punch CAN kill or permanently injure even a relatively large man man in good physical condition.

Anybody that suggests you should "man up" and get into a fist-fight rather than defend yourself with your firearm simply doesn't know what they're talking about.

Having said that, I want to emphasize that, in the incident I recounted in Post #1, I COULD HAVE - and SHOULD HAVE - refrained from verbally antagonizing an obviously ant-social psychopath.

AVOIDANCE is BY FAR the better tactic.

Further, if it hadn't ended the way it did, I COULD HAVE - and SHOULD HAVE attempted to de-escalate the encounter with apologies and assurances that, in deed, I AM an idiot and that the psychopath IS an upstanding, intelligent, and eminently worthy individual who's pardon is my only desire...



BUT...



...I'm not taking a punch.

 

[rainbowbob]

I now return this thread to the discussion of dog training:

...You're training them not to like strangers...

Is training your dogs to not like strangers considered a BAD thing?

I thought that was their job.

 

[Rockwell1]

Is training your dogs to not like strangers considered a BAD thing?

It is if your objective is to socialize them

 

[Kleanbore]

A punch IS a felony assault (at least here). One punch CAN kill or permanently injure even a relatively large man man in good physical condition.

Check WSC9A.36.011. "Can" kill or seriously injure doesn't cut it. "Did" or "is likely to" kill or inflict great bodily injury can move the unlawful use of force without a deadly weapon, poison, or the AIDS virus to the level of Assault in the First Degree, which is a felony. I wouldn't want to try to argue that because punches (which happen all the time) have killed that they are likely to.

You won't see "can kill or permanently injure" in WSC.36.121 or .131 (assault in the second and third degree. resp.) either, though the identity of the assault victim can make unarmed assault a felony.

Absent actual serious injury or death; attack with a deadly weapon; the use of force likely to cause serious injury; poison; use of the AIDS virus; or an attack on a child, transit worker, or certain public official; an assault is classified as a gross misdemeanor. As I read it, that does not justify the use of deadly force by a civilian to prevent a felony. Lay opinion.

You might persuade a jury that a reasonable person would have used no less force because of a reasonable belief that such was immediately necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily injury. And then again, you might not. The literature suggests probably not. We can as lay people speculate until hell freezes over on how well we might fare. Better for you to consult a lawyer.

Anybody that suggests you should "man up" and get into a fist-fight rather than defend yourself with your firearm simply doesn't know what they're talking about.

I would never get ito a fistfight. But as you say here, the use of a firearm is not the only alternative:

Having said that, I want to emphasize that, in the incident I recounted in Post #1, I COULD HAVE - and SHOULD HAVE - refrained from verbally antagonizing an obviously ant-social psychopath.

AVOIDANCE is BY FAR the better tactic.

Further, if it hadn't ended the way it did, I COULD HAVE - and SHOULD HAVE attempted to de-escalate the encounter with apologies and assurances that, in deed, I AM an idiot and that the psychopath IS an upstanding, intelligent, and eminently worthy individual who's pardon is my only desire.

So, what if that doesn't work? If your only alternative is a deadly weapon, you may feel you have no alternative but to use it. But then your fate is completely out of your hands.

I have with me now, and I carry always, a Kimber Pepper Blaster. Effective range of 13 ft., disables for up to an hour, not mitigated by spectacles, impervious to breeze and rain, and unlikely to get me locked up for 25 to life.

Look into it.

 

[rainbowbob]

Brown's crime qualifies as "felony murder" because it happened during the commission of second-degree assault, a felony.

RCW 9A.36.021: A person is guilty of assault in the second degree if he...intentionally assaults another and thereby recklessly inflicts substantial bodily harm...

Kleanbore wrote:...to try to argue that because punches (which happen all the time) have killed that they are likely to...Better for you to consult a lawyer.

Your arguments and advice to seek council are valid and on point...


...BUT...


I say again, and not facetiously, that my attorney will not be present at such an incident should anything so unfortunate occur. It will be my judgement alone that must determine how I resolve it. Legal distinctions between felony assault and misdemeanor assault will not likely be a distinction I am able to make - or even willing to consider - in a moment of crisis.

I think I have a general understanding of the applicable statutes and the legal ramifications of the use of deadly force. Regardless, those things would only be marginally in play at the moment of a violent assault.

And I will say it again: I will NOT take a punch - felonious or otherwise.

Not because I'm looking for an opportunity to use my firearm. I'm not.

Not because I am unwilling to be humiliated. I don't care at all about that.

But simply because I'm convinced that a single punch to the head may cause serious injury or death, and I'm not willing to concede the first round to my assailant. There may not be a second round.

So, what if that [avoidance] doesn't work? If your only alternative is a deadly weapon, you may feel you have no alternative but to use it.

That is correct. I not only may feel that way - I will most likely "feel" (i.e., think, react) that way.

I have with me now, and I carry always, a Kimber Pepper Blaster...Look into it.

I remain unconvinced of the efficacy, or advisability, of employing spray irritants in an (hypothetical) encounter that I (at the time) believe might potentially result in my serious injury or death.

 

[Seattleimport]

rainbowbob, I too live in Seattle. In which off-leash park did this incident occur? Just curious.

 

[rainbowbob]

In which off-leash park did this incident occur?

PM sent.

 

[Kleanbore]

RCW 9A.36.021: A person is guilty of assault in the second degree if he...intentionally assaults another and thereby recklessly inflicts substantial bodily harm..

And if that happened when the assailant intended to inflict great bodily harm, I think the charge would be assault in the first degree.

Both are felonies. My point was that a mere punch is not a felony in such a situation unless and until it happens to have disastrous results.

The lay person might conclude that one can shoot to prevent the possibility of that oucome. All of the literature and the CCW training I've had suggests otherwise. Time to stop speculating and get some legal advice, I think.

I say again, and not facetiously, that my attorney will not be present at such an incident should anything so unfortunate occur. It will be my judgement alone that must determine how I resolve it. Legal distinctions between felony assault and misdemeanor assault will not likely be a distinction I am able to make - or even willing to consider - in a moment of crisis.

Excellent point, and a compelling reason for why one needs to understand what one can and cannot do with a deadly weapon before it happens.

And I will say it again: I will NOT take a punch - felonious or otherwise.

Not because I'm looking for an opportunity to use my firearm. I'm not.

Not because I am unwilling to be humiliated. I don't care at all about that.

But simply because I'm convinced that a single punch to the head may cause serious injury or death, and I'm not willing to concede the first round to my assailant. There may not be a second round.

We are in complete agreement on all of those points.

I will most likely "feel" (i.e., think, react) that way [using a firearm].

I remain unconvinced of the efficacy, or advisability, of employing spray irritants in an (hypothetical) encounter that I (at the time) believe might potentially result in my serious injury or death.

That's where we differ, though I have not discussed the issue with an experienced Washington trial attorney. All the literature I've seen suggests that unless I am infirm, outsized, outnumbered, or female, and the man is not armed, I would have a very difficult time with my attempted defense of justifiability.

What I might believe at the time "might potentially result in my serious injury or death" is one thing. What counts is whether the jury will believe that, based on the information known to me at the time, a reasonable person would have concluded that deadly force had necessary to prevent said injury or death. The A, O, J, P formula in UseofForce.us. And that loops us back around to talking to a lawyer.

By the way, the Arizona jury instructions differ very little in that regard from those of Washington State (they say "would have used no less force" rather than the same force") but here's whats on a an Arizona website on the subject:

http://arizonaccwpermit.com/2008/06/02/what-are-the-laws-in-arizona-regarding-self-defense-and-the-legal-use-of-force/

What happens when someone threatens you with a baseball bat or a stick? Since neither of these are “deadly weapons” but simply “dangerous instruments” you may not be justified in using lethal force, but would be justified in using some physical force in self defense. It simply depends on the circumstances. For example, if you were elderly or infirm, you might be justified in using lethal force if you believed you might be seriously injured or killed by your attacker. If you were about the same size and the same sex as your attacker and had some impact weapon available, you might not be justified in using lethal force, but you would be justified in using physical force to stop an attack. These issues are broadly referred to as “disparity of force” issues. They involve things like the number of attackers, disparity in the physical size, age or sex between the victim and attacker. All these things can affect whether or not justification can be used as a defense against use of force in a self defense situation.

And on that, I would have great difficulty characterizing a baseball bat as anything but a deadly weapon, believe me!

The fact that I believe the use of a gun my not be justified in the circumstances described against a threatening unarmed man doesn't mean I would get into a fight. The pepper blaster is not a spray irritant, per se. It uses pyrotechnic charges to propel powerful irritant charges at high velocity, for some distance. There's a higher powered version available.

And with a gun in the strong side pocket holster I'm not relying entirely upon the pepper blaster as the last option.

 

[rainbowbob]

My point was that a mere punch is not a felony in such a situation unless and until it happens to have disastrous results.

I understood that point and agree with your legal interpretation.

My point is - regardless of what an attorney can tell me about what a jury might do to me in that circumstance - I have already decided I would employ force, up to and including deadly force, in order to prevent somebody from punching me in the head. Nothing an attorney can tell me will change that. Not even if he tells me I might be prosecuted for it. In that case, I would rely on the judgment of my peers to conclude a "reasonable person" did what any "reasonable person" would agree was "reasonable." And may God have mercy on my soul.

Do you have a link to the pepper blaster, including carry suggestions and information regarding its efficacy against an enraged and determined adversary?

I guess it wouldn't hurt to investigate that option further - but I'm still not convinced of its advisability.

 

[Kleanbore]

My point is that - regardless of what an attorney can tell me about what a jury might do to me in that circumstance - I have already decided I would employ force, up to and including deadly force, in order to prevent somebody from punching me in the head.

OK. I guess you understand that unless homicide is justified, it is murder.

Do you have a link to the pepper blaster, including carry options? I guess it wouldn't hurt to investigate that option further - but I'm still not convinced of its advisability.

Here it is. Slide show and video. I have the Pepper Blaster. the JPX appears more effective.

The Pepper Blaster costs around $40-50. The JPX is much more.

http://www.pepperblaster.com/

http://www.defendingwomen.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=273

The dealer I went to has fired inert demo charges from both.

The JPX will set you back the cost of around one chargeable hour for your defense attorney!

 

[JT1JT1]

I recently started following this thread again.

In the OP's original scenario, I suspect the District Attorney in my neck of the woods could argue that everything that happened in the original posting met the standards for "mutual combat." Two dudes have words. One approaches; the other assumes a combative ready stance; more tense words exchanged. Now, the way it's been explained to me, it doesn't really matter who throws the first punch...you're already both fighting and there's no self-defense until one of you makes a clear effort to disengage. Can you pull your piece and shoot an unarmed combatant while engaged in mutual combat? I don't think so...I don't think it's like the schoolyard where you can say "he hit me first" and absolve yourself of responsibility for the confrontation.

Which is why I thought RB had good sense in deciding that he just doesn't want to engage nitwits at all going forward. That is, why waste your breath trying to change the mind of somebody who might be more than a few cards short of a full deck.

So now I come back to this thread. Do I understand correctly? Are some people arguing that they will shoot an apparently unarmed person who is moving toward them in an agitated manner because they do not want to risk taking the first punch?

I understand the fear of taking a hit, which could potentially (but perhaps not likely) result in an instant kill. Or the fear of taking a hit that could make it even more difficult to retreat or retrieve your weapon. Or the fear that an aggressor will close the distance and then produce a weapon. But unless you in NO WAY contributed to the confrontation OR are clearly attempting to disengage, I don't think you can shoot an unarmed person to avoid what you think might be a punch coming your way...

 

[rainbowbob]

I understand the fear of taking a hit, which could potentially (but perhaps not likely) result in an instant kill. But unless you in NO WAY contributed to the confrontation OR [left the] area clearly attempting to disengage, I don't think you can shoot an unarmed person to avoid what you think might be a punch coming your way...

Welcome back to the discussion...

This has become somewhat hypothetical and general in nature, but I think it's still a valuable discussion.

I have repeatedly emphasized that I believe resorting to deadly force to avoid taking a punch to the head would only be reasonable IF an assault ensued despite sincere efforts at deescalation (including apologies and self-effacement) - and an attempt at disengagement by any means available.

And according to our county prosecutor - "one-punch homicides" are not as uncommon as you might think.

 

[scrooge]

Make the decision now

I agree Bob. Not only would the act endanger me, what would be the consequences for the family members now that I am incapacitated? This is where this scenario has some twists and turns. The idea that I should take a punch......laughable. Watch some of the one punch knockouts on the UFC. Even these highly trained athletes would have no way of defending or protecting anyone!

One thing all this discussion brings to mind for me is that you must have all tis made up in your mind before the incident. Can't wait and try to make this decision spur of the moment.

Another is that we tend to get into a lot of legalese when discussing this. That would have to wait for the courts. I know that an arrest would most likely follow, and a legal battle. I would still go that route rather than "take a punch", reinforce some thug's criminal tendencies, and put my family members in any danger.

 

[rrruuunnn]

I've been in some situations like this. This is not an easy situation. I sometimes ignore the aggressor for the betterment of the group. A classmate [insulted me]. I knew fighting would turn the study abroad into a less memorable experience for others. And I was accepted into this class as a guest outside my major. So I ignored him. When it was time for a social gathering, guess who called to invite me to an after party. Now, everyone is getting along.

A friend of mine during a post race began messing with me with the cops about 50 yards away looking. I didn't want to turn this into a brawl. On another festive occassion he said that he would punch me in the face. I don't hang around with them anymore. But the group has fond memories and not a brawl in the middle of a post race party. It sucks at the moment but you know that things are better off that way.

 

[JT1JT1]

RainbowBob,

Don't get me wrong. I think you've shown admirable introspection from the original incident. Your subsequent resolution to avoid getting involved in the likely futile effort of correcting the bad public behavior of strangers seems a wise decision.

As you described the original incident, though, it seems the police and/or prosecutor could easily argue (not necessarily correctly) that you were an active participant in the confrontation. There was never a point in the original post where you clearly disengaged. So in the absence of a weapon in the BG's hand and/or a vicious beat down in progress could you have justifiably shot him? Yet, your hand was already reaching for a deadly weapon...

What's difficult about these scenarios is speed of the transition. We'll never know if the other guy was just a blowhard having a bad day or a violent psychopath. Was he approaching you to give you a piece of his mind or a violent tune up? Would you have had time to figure it out and take the appropriate action? I understand how, in the face of such ambiguity, some people would prefer to take their chances with a prosecutor than with potential punches. But the outcome could be horrible either way.

Me, I think there's an argument here for getting your wife her own gun, so somebody could be covering your six in a scenario like this.

 

[Kleanbore]

One thing all this discussion brings to mind for me is that you must have all tis made up in your mind before the incident. Can't wait and try to make this decision spur of the moment.

The decision will be made at the time of the event. What must be done in advance is to gain as great an understanding of the proper and improper use of deadly force as possible.

Another is that we tend to get into a lot of legalese when discussing this. That would have to wait for the courts. I know that an arrest would most likely follow, and a legal battle. I would still go that route rather than "take a punch", reinforce some thug's criminal tendencies, and put my family members in any danger.

Well, when a gun is fired or even drawn, the language changes entirely to ""legalese". Yes, the outcome will be determined later in the judicial system. However, it might be a good idea to know before deciding to pull your gun and use it whether your lawyer thinks that your chances in that legal battle would be that of a snowball's chance in Hades, or as good as your chances of winning on American Idol, or any where close to a range that you could reasonably accept.

You might also want to consider how your family might fare without you, and how they would get by after your legal expenses had been paid.

In the OPs scenario, I suggest that they would have been safe in the presence of the angry man in the public park, and that his retreat might have diffused the situation and if it did not, put him in a better position to win a defense of justifiability than might be the case otherwise.

 

[scrooge]

Decisions

The decision will be made at the time of the event. What must be done in advance is to gain as great an understanding of the proper and improper use of deadly force as possible.

We are talking about two different decisions here. I am referring to the decision as to wheter or not you will use deadly force to protect you or your loved ones. This discussion has gone on for 7 pages, you can't contemplate all these issues at the moment of truth. I do agree, as I said in an earlier post, that you should know your deadly force laws and train appropriately.

it might be a good idea to know before deciding to pull your gun and use it whether your lawyer thinks that your chances in that legal battle would be that of a snowball's chance in Hades

See above re: deadly force issues and your decisions.

Your post uses a "suggestion" and several "mights".

In the OPs scenario, I suggest that they would have been safe in the presence of the angry man in the public park, and that his retreat might have diffused the situation and if it did not, put him in a better position to win a defense of justifiability than might be the case otherwise.

They "might" be safe isn't good enough for me, "might" diffuse the situation isn't really clear.

To each his own I guess.

I value all the opinions I have read here but I think we have to, at some point, stop this idea that we all must retreat, or run away, or de-escalate, or whatever you want to call it. Not trying to start an argument here with anyone. Just stating that we have gone too far already.

I won't post any further on this issue as we all have to make this decision at a personal level. Only got involved when someone posted that Police "require" you to retreat or de-escalate. Not true in my state. God bless 'em.

 

[Deanimator]

Only got involved when someone posted that Police "require" you to retreat or de-escalate. Not true in my state. God bless 'em.

True in Ohio, but only if you're not in your home or car. Becoming a home invader or a carjacker can be a life changing [ENDING] decision in Ohio.

 

[Kleanbore]

Only got involved when someone posted that Police "require" you to retreat or de-escalate. Not true in my state. God bless 'em.

Nor is it true that one must retreat in the OP's home state of Wasnington. Deescalation is another matter. It is true in all states that the immediate use of deadly force must be necessary and that the danger must be imminent. The term "deescalation" implies the existence of a dispute or conflict, and that can take things out of the realm of a self-defense shooting.

Read the original post again and consider it in light of JT1JT1's comment:

In the OP's original scenario, I suspect the District Attorney in my neck of the woods could argue that everything that happened in the original posting met the standards for "mutual combat." Two dudes have words. One approaches; the other assumes a combative ready stance; more tense words exchanged. Now, the way it's been explained to me, it doesn't really matter who throws the first punch...you're already both fighting and there's no self-defense until one of you makes a clear effort to disengage. Can you pull your piece and shoot an unarmed combatant while engaged in mutual combat? I don't think so...I don't think it's like the schoolyard where you can say "he hit me first" and absolve yourself of responsibility for the confrontation.

...

So now I come back to this thread. Do I understand correctly? Are some people arguing that they will shoot an apparently unarmed person who is moving toward them in an agitated manner because they do not want to risk taking the first punch?

I understand the fear of taking a hit, which could potentially (but perhaps not likely) result in an instant kill. Or the fear of taking a hit that could make it even more difficult to retreat or retrieve your weapon. Or the fear that an aggressor will close the distance and then produce a weapon. But unless you in NO WAY contributed to the confrontation OR are clearly attempting to disengage, I don't think you can shoot an unarmed person to avoid what you think might be a punch coming your way...

I don't think so either, and as I have suggested, it might well be worth getting an opinion from a qualified source before deciding that one would do something that could turn out to have been pretty stupid.