Use of Deadly Force

[emb]

We have had several local incidents that have caused me to think about using deadly force. Both incidents involved parents whose children were being beaten up by multiple gang bangers. Here are the scenarios:

1. In the parking lot of a local Cracker Barrel a father and son are confronted by 4 youths, ages 16-18. The son knows the kids and they procede to beat him up very badly. 2 of the youths have cement casts on one of their hands. They look like casts but are made out of cement. The father intercedes and is hit from behind by one of these kids with the cast and it sends him to the hospital with a broken skull and a severe concussion. After talking with him, he and his son didn't do much right in the encounter, and the father's pistol was in the truck.

2. A son is being badly beaten by 7-9 youths, ages 14 to 17, outside of the father's home in the front yard. Again, the son knows the kids. Some of the kids have baseball bats. Again, the father intercedes. The youths turn on the father and beat him with the baseball bats. They then return to beating the son with the baseball bats. Both father and son are taken to the hospital. I don't know too much about this encounter. It was in the paper this morning.

Both of these incidents involved local gang bangers-kids. A cement cast and a baseball bat are both potentially deadly weapons that at the very least can inflict serious bodily harm. But some of the kids are armed and some are not. You certainly don't want to be in the middle of this group in any type of fight, but suppose an unarmed kid (one or more) is/are the one(s) who confront(s) you?

As a father and a card carrying CCW holder I would no doubt intercede. If I did, I would cause some serious damage and play for keeps. But would deadly force be justified here? Are you justified in shooting one of the unarmed kids to protect yourself. If you display a firearm in response to a confrontation by one of the unarmed kids, what next? If you shoot one of these kids, their parents will turn them into angels and you into the devil.

I am struggling with what to do here. Instinct tells me one thing (deadly force is justified) and my mind tells me another (no deadly force). Ideas?

 

[3pairs12]

The problem is 2 part. Problem 1 you presume these kids are unarmed you attempt to intercede already making your mind up that deadly force is not warranted and one pulls out a knife. Problem 2 is if he really is unarmed in which case deadly force would not be warranted and the little punks continue to reak havoc until one or both are armed.

 

[esq_stu]

Your state's laws will determine whether it would be legal to use lethal force to defend another.

A concrete cast is the same as a brick - potentially deadly. Being outnumbered 4 to 1 is also potentially deadly. So you could reasonably believe lethal force is necessary. But . . .

It's tough to be analytical when seconds count. If you reasonably believe a person's life is in danger and that your state has laws that permit defense of another, you must understand that your use of deadly force still could cost you everything you own to stay out of jail.

You will probably have to show a prosecutor or a jury that your belief in the need for lethal force was reasonable from your perspective.

 

[3KillerBs]

The law in NC says, "To prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault."

Anyone who doesn't believe that a mass beating meets those criteria is not "a person of ordinary firmness."

 

[sacp81170a]

The concept is called "disparity of force." This can occur when, for instance, a 100 lb. woman is confronted with a 250 lb. weightlifter. The weightlifter could easily cause serious bodily injury to the 100 lb. woman, whether he's 16 or not (some of the kids on our high school's football team are that age and that big). This is also the case when you are outnumbered. The law recognizes that you can be justified in using deadly force when the number of attackers makes serious bodily injury or death likely, regardless of whether or not they're armed. As others have said, baseball bats and concrete casts are deadly weapons as much as any club or brick.

 

[coyotehitman]

+1 on disparity of force issues

4:1 and 7-9:1 = a high probablilty of serious physical harm = the justifiable use of an elevated level of force in response to said attack. In court, the reasonable person or reasonable prudent person standard is applied. Would a reasonable person have believed serious physical harm may result from said beating? Did the perpetrators have the MEANS and show the INTENT to cause serious physical harm?

 

[M2 Carbine]

But would deadly force be justified here? Are you justified in shooting one of the unarmed kids to protect yourself.

As presented, deadly force is called for and I believe would be legal in most states.

Personally, if the thugs have the means, "A cement cast and a baseball bat", and the apparent intent to seriously harm me or mine I will shoot them as sure as the Sun will rise tomorrow.
That is if I didn't leave the gun in the truck.

 

[buck00]

1. In the parking lot of a local Cracker Barrel a father and son are confronted by 4 youths, ages 16-18. The son knows the kids and they procede to beat him up very badly.....

In both of these scenarios, if the teens are not responding to verbal commands, a warning shot would be the best way to neutralize the situation. Shoot into the grass if possible (not straight up).

I know some members are going to whine: but you can't do that, a firearm isn't a noise maker! You'll be charged with discharge in a public place.

However, not only should a gun shot send the attacking perps running like rabbits, but it would avoid you facing manslaughter and not being around for your son's next 20 birthdays.

 

[Treo]

QUOTE: "However, not only should a gun shot send the attacking perps running like rabbits"

Or cause them to draw their own. Warning shots are BAAAAAAAD JU-JU, what happens when the "warning shot" causes them to turn on you?

The police are starting to use a new term for these gangbangers, the term is UCV or Urban Combat Veterans and it applies to any thug who's been in several firefights on the street. A warning shot isn't going to scare a kid like that.

 

[P95loser]

My only comment I have is if there are 4-7 teenagers on my front yard beating my child w/ baseball bats, I'm pulling out my once banned, high capacity "assault weapon" and using it the way God and Eugene Stoner intended it.

 

[scott22]

"My only comment I have is if there are 4-7 teenagers on my front yard beating my child w/ baseball bats, I'm pulling out my once banned, high capacity "assault weapon" and using it the way God and Eugene Stoner intended it."

Well said... I didnt think I would have to get to 10 posts to read that.

 

[sacp81170a]

"My only comment I have is if there are 4-7 teenagers on my front yard beating my child w/ baseball bats, I'm pulling out my once banned, high capacity "assault weapon" and using it the way God and Eugene Stoner intended it."

Well said... I didnt think I would have to get to 10 posts to read that.

Still gotta keep your wits about you. You're only justified in using deadly force as long as the attack is ongoing. If you shoot one and the rest stop or flee, you're no longer justified in shooting any more.

 

[Otemigo]

"My only comment I have is if there are 4-7 teenagers on my front yard beating my child w/ baseball bats, I'm pulling out my once banned, high capacity "assault weapon" and using it the way God and Eugene Stoner intended it."

Well said... I didnt think I would have to get to 10 posts to read that.

AMEN TO THE REAL AMERICANS!!!

To think about the law when your kid is being beaten (with or without a bat) would have to be one of those hindsight things.

Who cares about the technicality of a law if your kid is being killed.

 

[sacp81170a]

To think about the law when your kid is being beaten (with or without a bat) would have to be one of those hindsight things.

Who cares about the technicality of a law if your kid is being killed.

No, it's a foresight thing, which is what S&T is all about. The "technicality of a law" is what will lose you your house and land you in prison if you don't take the time and trouble to use your brains as well as your gun. Train with both, or you're in for some bad experiences.

 

[M1911]

In both of these scenarios, if the teens are not responding to verbal commands, a warning shot would be the best way to neutralize the situation. Shoot into the grass if possible (not straight up).

Warning shots are almost always a bad idea. You are responsible for the final resting place of each and every round that you fire.

Depending upon the circumstances, you might consider a verbal warning prior to shooting -- for example "Don't move, drop that weapon!" But warning shots are a real good way to get in a heap of trouble.

 

[scott22]

"Who cares about the technicality of a law if your kid is being killed."

I would much prefer to spend life in jail knowing I saved my child, than life without that child because of said incident. I am not condoning picking them off as they scatter down the street, but one of 'em is going to go down and any that don't run are following suit. I'm all for "fight like a man" but not against 7-9 with baseball bats...

 

[P95loser]

Still gotta keep your wits about you. You're only justified in using deadly force as long as the attack is ongoing. If you shoot one and the rest stop or flee, you're no longer justified in shooting any more.

Not necessarily true, but if you want to believe that, fine by me. They can stop and stand there and still be an immenent threat, not only that once they flee, they could be "fleeing" to a vehicle with small arms in it. Alabama has laws to protect the victim fairly in justification of use of deadly force, as well as a castle doctrine.

I wouldn't worry about litigation or charges against me anyway, I would worry about my child who is being beaten...

 

[Treo]

QUOTE: "If you shoot one and the rest stop or flee, you're no longer justified in shooting any more. "

We actually had a case here in Colorado in which the BGs broke into the victim's (later defendant) home beat the snot out of him (over a percieved insult at a party earlier), then told him that they were going to get a gun & come back & finish the job. The victim/defendant was able to get to the gunsafe before the BGs got out of the driveway and he shot the driver (DRT) in the back W/ a .308 hunting rifle. Victim/ defendant became Defendant/ victim on the spot. Once year and several thousand in lawyer fees later the jury found him to be in reasonable fear of life or grievous bodily harm.

EDITED TO ADD
In case my written communication skills are lacking I want to re-emphasize the following points of this post

The beating had stopped
The bad guys were no longer an imminate threat.
They had left the house
They were driving AWAY from the homeowner when he shot at them.

The jury decided the beating plus the threat was enough for the homeowner to presume intent & use deadly force to protect himself

 

[MiddleAgedKen]

I'm hardly an expert in these matters, but I don't think a warning shot is indicated. If it's worth drawing, it's worth firing for effect.

Additionally, one should not be trying to do the "judged by twelve/carried by six" calculus during the incident. If one hasn't settled that question well in advance of any incident that might call for it, one hasn't spent enough time thinking about it.

 

[Cougfan2]

If a bunch of gang bangers, or anyone for that matter, were beating my kid I would make sure as many of them as possible left the scene in bags!!!

 

[emb]

I had thought about the warning shot, but discounted it right away for 3 reasons. First, it probably wouldn't scare these kids. Second, I would have to put the round into a good and reliable backstop so it did not skip into something unintended. Third, I now have one less round to deal with multiple threats.

I did think about confronting them with lethal force while giving loud verbal commands to stop. If they don't comply, come at me, or continue the beating, the next one swinging a bat or cast at me or mine would go down.

With those odds I definitely would not let them approach me into striking distance, get behind me, or just jump into the fray like these 2 parents did. I would try to use distance to resolve the situation one way or another. But I would not let them under any circumstances continue to beat my kid under those circumstances.

Unless I keep my head and deal with the situation in a manner that keeps me on my feet and the BGs away from me and mine, I will not be much help to anyone.

I don't know how this would come out in court. I think it does make sense to think these scenerios through. Being mentally prepared for this type of scenerio seems like a good idea.

One incident was a friend and the other was a newpaper account of another incident. But this is happening around here with frightening regularity. The gang activity is that bad and is spilling over into all areas.

 

[Corporal K]

In a situation like that, draw your weapon, give a verbal command to stop. If they don't, shoot the one who is the most dangerous threat. The others won't stick around.

When you call 911, keep repeating "They were trying to murder my son. I was afraid for my son's life. I was afraid for my life."

In court you "shot to live".

This is just me, but I would immediately file a civil suit against the parents of any of the punks, both for bodily injury and mental anguish (if a lawyer would go for it). My premise would be that their son, whom they're responsible for if he's under 18, forced me to take his life and I have to live with the aftermath.

 

[M1911]

This is just me, but I would immediately file a civil suit against the parents of any of the punks, both for bodily injury and mental anguish (if a lawyer would go for it).

Unlikely that you would find an attorney to take the case. There's no reason to sue unless there is a pot of money at the end of the legal rainbow. And the gangbanger likely has few if any assets.

 

[sacp81170a]

Not necessarily true, but if you want to believe that, fine by me. They can stop and stand there and still be an immenent threat, not only that once they flee, they could be "fleeing" to a vehicle with small arms in it. Alabama has laws to protect the victim fairly in justification of use of deadly force, as well as a castle doctrine.

Now you're adding to the scenario. If they flee and you shoot them in the back, how did you know that they were "'fleeing' to a vehicle with small arms in it?" You don't. Congrats, you just became the aggressor. Have fun in prison.

then told him that they were going to get a gun & come back & finish the job. The victim/defendant was able to get to the gunsafe before the BGs got out of the driveway and he shot the driver (DRT) in the back W/ a .308 hunting rifle. Victim/ defendant became Defendant/ victim on the spot. Once year and several thousand in lawyer fees later the jury found him to be in reasonable fear of life or grievous bodily harm.

That makes it a different situation entirely. That threat, coupled with the beating already given, would put any reasonable person in fear for their life. Too bad it cost him so much money to prove his innocence, but better that than being dead.

Those of you who advocate expending your entire magazine on the gang need to rethink your strategy. If the attack stops and the punks show no inclination to continue, then you have to stop or risk becoming the aggressor. You're walking into a grey area in the legal system that gives the BG's too much of an advantage. Sucks, but it's true. Venture no farther into that area than you have to.

You may now resume your internet keyboard commando chest pounding session.

 

[Cosmoline]

but suppose an unarmed kid (one or more) is/are the one(s) who confront(s) you?

Then you can use less than lethal force to defend yourself, or better yet leave the scene. What you don't want is to get caught up in some stupid argument with them that leads to more troubles.

In my jurisdiction, facing a mixed group of armed and unarmed attackers who would not let me leave in peace, I would open up on them no question. They're acting as a single gang and I'd be happy to take that to a jury here. Other jurisdictions where the jury pool is bad and the local DA's horrific I don't know. In the end you have to decide if you want to keep your brains intact or get a street lobotomy from some worthless animal with a brick.

Another factor in the examples cited is this--why were the teenaged sons getting crosswise with the gangsters? Maybe that was innocent, or maybe the sons were fellow bangers. The point is if you side with someone in such a fight you'd better make sure they're worth it.

Also, the fathers in both cases seem to have assumed their mere physical presence would stop the attack. That's a fatal mistake. Young males are bar none the single most dangerous animals on the planet. They do 99% of the rape and murder, and in a pack they're more than a match for an adult male. Don't assume you'll be able to straighten them out with a good talking to or roughing up. If they are presenting a deadly threat treat them as you would any criminals.