TexasSeaRay
New member
kgpcr said:
Might want to get your facts straight on this incident . . .
Jeff
Fight, a beating that won't stop!
- Thread starter KS.45
- Start date
Might want to get your facts straight on this incident . . .
Jeff
Double Naught Spy
New member
So KS.45, I see you still haven't cited the specific laws. Any reason why not? How about citing cases, civil suits, of where witnesses were sued for not taking action? How about citing some cases where witnesses were sued for not taking action because they were legally carrying concealed? And while you are at it, be sure to include the portion of the law that makes the civil suit viable.
Given your prosition of giving legal advice here and your inability to cite law, your lack of understanding is quite alarming.
Given your prosition of giving legal advice here and your inability to cite law, your lack of understanding is quite alarming.
TexasSeaRay
http://wcco.com/local/robbinsdale.road.rage.2.615367.html
Here is the news report on it.
http://wcco.com/local/robbinsdale.road.rage.2.615367.html
Here is the news report on it.
TexasSeaRay
New member
kgpcr,
Apparently, there is some additional information that has come forth and more to come. Latest reports I've heard/read (several days ago, now), state that Beard, the undercover cop, was heard by no less than three credible witnesses threatening the shooter with "I'll kill you!" and "Ain't no big thing, punk. I'll kill you" prior to being shot. Worse yet, Beard (the cop) didn't identify himself as a cop until AFTER things had completely denigrated to FUBAR.
Got an old DoJ pal who lives in St. Paul that's tight with the PD up there. He's hearing some interesting things. Says if the cop had lived, he'd be going to jail--no if's about it.
Preliminary line (again, as of several days ago) was that the cop was way, way, way out of line and provoked the situation.
Of course, on the other hand it's kind of hard to defend to entrance wounds to the back of an alleged attacker . . .
Either way, it's pretty clear up to this point that two hotheads let their johnsons do their talking because their faces knew better.
No winners in this one, man. No winners.
Jeff
Apparently, there is some additional information that has come forth and more to come. Latest reports I've heard/read (several days ago, now), state that Beard, the undercover cop, was heard by no less than three credible witnesses threatening the shooter with "I'll kill you!" and "Ain't no big thing, punk. I'll kill you" prior to being shot. Worse yet, Beard (the cop) didn't identify himself as a cop until AFTER things had completely denigrated to FUBAR.
Got an old DoJ pal who lives in St. Paul that's tight with the PD up there. He's hearing some interesting things. Says if the cop had lived, he'd be going to jail--no if's about it.
Preliminary line (again, as of several days ago) was that the cop was way, way, way out of line and provoked the situation.
Of course, on the other hand it's kind of hard to defend to entrance wounds to the back of an alleged attacker . . .
Either way, it's pretty clear up to this point that two hotheads let their johnsons do their talking because their faces knew better.
No winners in this one, man. No winners.
Jeff
Some have indicated that a person licensed and carrying, who did not intervene in the scenario presented, could be legally liable to the family of the man beat to death. NOT SO. The law DOES NOT impose a duty to act on ANYONE who otherwise has no legal duty to act and who has not given rise to a duty to act by taking voluntary actions that give rise to a special relationship between them and the victim. THERE IS NO DUTY TO BE A GOOD SAMARITAN in the United States.
There is a very good reason WHY the law is what it is. Simply being present during a crisis (pick any crisis) DOES NOT mean the person present has the knowledge, skill, physical attributes, mental attributes or health to become involved in a manner that is safe, useful and DOES NOT CAUSE MORE OF A PROBLEM. The law recognizes this fact and therefore does not obligate people to act simply because they are present. Such a law would surely cause more harm than good as people without the ability to intervene safely would do so out of fear of the law, often getting hurt, or causing more harm than good. YOU HAVE NOT DUTY TO DO ANYTHING.
Now, let's say that you are there, there is a crowd and the guy is getting a beating. You announce in a loud voice that you are going to call the cops -- you try, but your cell phone is dead so you cannot make the call. YOU SAY NOTHING. Others who WOULD HAVE CALLED BUT FOR YOUR ANNOUNCEMENT, also do not call. The man is beat to death. Now you have some serious liability because you have just interjected yourself, caused others to rely on you to make the call, thus depriving the victim of the benefit of others who MIGHT HAVE CALLED HAD THEY NOT RELIED ON YOUR STATEMENT THAT YOU WERE GOING TO CALL. The victim's family will sue. They will win. I would take their case.
Folks, please, get the laws straight. This is serious stuff.
There is a very good reason WHY the law is what it is. Simply being present during a crisis (pick any crisis) DOES NOT mean the person present has the knowledge, skill, physical attributes, mental attributes or health to become involved in a manner that is safe, useful and DOES NOT CAUSE MORE OF A PROBLEM. The law recognizes this fact and therefore does not obligate people to act simply because they are present. Such a law would surely cause more harm than good as people without the ability to intervene safely would do so out of fear of the law, often getting hurt, or causing more harm than good. YOU HAVE NOT DUTY TO DO ANYTHING.
Now, let's say that you are there, there is a crowd and the guy is getting a beating. You announce in a loud voice that you are going to call the cops -- you try, but your cell phone is dead so you cannot make the call. YOU SAY NOTHING. Others who WOULD HAVE CALLED BUT FOR YOUR ANNOUNCEMENT, also do not call. The man is beat to death. Now you have some serious liability because you have just interjected yourself, caused others to rely on you to make the call, thus depriving the victim of the benefit of others who MIGHT HAVE CALLED HAD THEY NOT RELIED ON YOUR STATEMENT THAT YOU WERE GOING TO CALL. The victim's family will sue. They will win. I would take their case.
Folks, please, get the laws straight. This is serious stuff.
lawboy, please don't interject facts here. Didn't you read, lawyers are all liars. That's why we should only follow common law which is law made by....lawyers. Of course, there is no common law duty to intervene either, but let's not allow that to stop the chest thumping. Those who are willfully and contemptuously ignorant will remain so despite your efforts.
CrazyIvan007
New member
A verbal order for A to cease.
A verbal warning I have a firearm while I pull my firearm from its hidden position and again with an order to cease.
If attacker continues, take a knee (so as not to overpenetrate the target and hit person B. Warn again, and if A does not stop, take a shot at the torso/chest.
Good one Crazy you just shot a guy who he just pulled off his daugter as he was trying to rape her and beat her ass up. she is on the way to call the cops and now you just shot her day. I am glad you got to shoot someone! Finaly after all this time i get to pull the trigger. The problem here is you do not have a clue as to what is going on and who is getting beat up. Now if its some one you know or some one is screaming for help that changes things. I wonder if you would be able to pull the trigger? many say they would untill the time comes. then its not so easy.
Not much point in this as a general discussion. Tort precedent and CCW law are individual to your state.
I've had a couple near fights in my area, the last couple years, and, cell phones are a wonderful thing.
I can say that in the People's Republic, gun comes out I go to jail, since CCW laws are such that legal carry is impossible, unless you're Diane Fienstien.
I've yet to see a tort system, and this includes our state, that you could be held liable in anyway for not intervening. In fact, even the police have been found to have no tort liability, or obligation, to protect.
In short, know your state laws, both tort and criminal, and, it wouldn't hurt to know your Federal laws as well, in both areas.
I've had a couple near fights in my area, the last couple years, and, cell phones are a wonderful thing.
I can say that in the People's Republic, gun comes out I go to jail, since CCW laws are such that legal carry is impossible, unless you're Diane Fienstien.
I've yet to see a tort system, and this includes our state, that you could be held liable in anyway for not intervening. In fact, even the police have been found to have no tort liability, or obligation, to protect.
In short, know your state laws, both tort and criminal, and, it wouldn't hurt to know your Federal laws as well, in both areas.
jabotinsky
New member
Having seen lots of fights like many here, I have to say that if one guy is down and the other guy is starting to kick him in the head, I would intervene physically to break it up. If the attacker is too big, I'd yell & use the cell, withdraw. I wouldn't just stand by & watch somebody get stomped to death, but I also wouldn't shoot an aggressor in a fistfight.
Dustinthewind
Inactive
Ks.45
I too am from Kansas and a fellow permit holder. I am a bit outraged and a bit alarmed by your instructors teachings.
You have no obligation in Ks. to protect someones life, including your own; The choice is yours to make. We Do have a Castle Doctrine and you are protected from civil action if you shoot and it is determined to be a good shoot. I would like to know the name of your instructor and where he holds his classes as it seems that he is providing misinformation.
In the scenario to which you posted you have a couple of options:
1 Walk away
2 Get involved
If you choose option one there is no legal action to take against you. If you choose option 2 your best recourse is to call 911. How do you know that the agressor A was not originally the agressee and has just now gotten the upper hand? Maybe he is a fellow permit holder that was attacked and is defending his life with his hands. And you must remember that each and every bullet fired from your gun is yours to own, meaning if you fire and strike a bystander, car, building, you can be sued and you can face criminal prosecution. When you took your CCW class you should have recievd a copy of both the Ks Senate and House Bills. My advice is to read it. If you didn't recive this info, it is available from the Ks. Attorney General.
I too am from Kansas and a fellow permit holder. I am a bit outraged and a bit alarmed by your instructors teachings.
You have no obligation in Ks. to protect someones life, including your own; The choice is yours to make. We Do have a Castle Doctrine and you are protected from civil action if you shoot and it is determined to be a good shoot. I would like to know the name of your instructor and where he holds his classes as it seems that he is providing misinformation.In the scenario to which you posted you have a couple of options:
1 Walk away
2 Get involved
If you choose option one there is no legal action to take against you. If you choose option 2 your best recourse is to call 911. How do you know that the agressor A was not originally the agressee and has just now gotten the upper hand? Maybe he is a fellow permit holder that was attacked and is defending his life with his hands. And you must remember that each and every bullet fired from your gun is yours to own, meaning if you fire and strike a bystander, car, building, you can be sued and you can face criminal prosecution. When you took your CCW class you should have recievd a copy of both the Ks Senate and House Bills. My advice is to read it. If you didn't recive this info, it is available from the Ks. Attorney General.
Would I intervene?
Possession of a CCW doesn't allow me any more privileges or authority, and doesn't make me a law enforcement agent of any sort. However, it also doesn't make me any less of a person. So, would I (me, personally, not as generic CCW holder) intervene?
The answer is yes, I would, based on past behavior patterns and upbringing. I was raised by a Sicilian mother who would never let me live it down if I just stood by, and as a result I've stuck my nose into situations like this a time or two over the years... But I would really, really not want to draw the weapon. Given that I have never needed a weapon in the past for such a situation, I would hopefully not need it in this scenario. I don't want the legal headaches, and I'm quite happy not having to deal with any of the psychological traumas that typically accompany the taking of a life.
Frankly, the presence of the weapon complicates things. One of my major concerns would be how NOT to have to use it, followed by how to act effectively while not letting anybody else gain control of it.
Verbal warning and 911 call would be the obvious first steps. Coordination with other good samaritans, if available, would be a nice option here. Watch some reality TV whenever they show a good team of bouncers, or US Marshals, and see how often the pros opt for a one on one takedown if two or three can rush the guy instead. Help is good.
Next step, if deemed necessary, would be an attempt to physically dislodge the still conscious combatant. Ideally, it wouldn't only be me pulling the guy off the unconscious combatant. But if it were just me, unless the guy is a tank, double armbars work pretty well. So do certain chokes, but those open up a whole 'nother Pandora's box of legal and moral issues... Chokes and neck holds are inherently dangerous, and I can't recommend them to anybody who doesn't know how to apply them, or when and how to safely release them.
My mother once pulled me off of somebody by my right ear, but I don't think I'd try that approach, and I definitely can't recommend it. It was startlingly effective, though. Funny, too, even at the time.
From my limited experience in breaking up fights between humans, and somewhat more extensive experience in breaking up fights between large dogs (generally boxers, pits, dobies and shepherds - not trained fighting dogs, just out of control and excited wannabe alpha males at the dog park), it helps if you can stay cool even when physically engaged, and tell the person (or animal) to knock it off in a calm but take-no-bs voice. Panic or anger only escalate things further. Even when your adrenaline is up, you have to do your best not to show it. But if you can sound calm, the other person may stop struggling sooner.
Note 1: my voice stays nice and steady. My right eye may tic a bit if I'm really angry or scared, but my voice stays steady. This does take some practice....
With dogs or people, grabs work better from rear or flank. Easier to get the hold, harder for them to respond, and of course harder for them to see the tic in the right eye.
Note 2: hopefully, witness statements are in your favor when LEO's show up. I was very happy that they were, in the one case where things got to that point.
Note 3: Aikido, judo and ju-jitsu are really useful arts for learning how to stop somebody without necessarily having to do lasting physical damage. Option to do damage exists, but a lot of that depends on the other guy.
Here's a question for the CCW holders here: If you are really worried about defense of self and others, how much time do you spend on physical fitness and martial arts training? Situations which justify use of limited force are much more common that those which justify deadly force. And I'd hate to think that people in the forum would choose to draw a weapon because it's their only viable option for a physical intervention.
Possession of a CCW doesn't allow me any more privileges or authority, and doesn't make me a law enforcement agent of any sort. However, it also doesn't make me any less of a person. So, would I (me, personally, not as generic CCW holder) intervene?
The answer is yes, I would, based on past behavior patterns and upbringing. I was raised by a Sicilian mother who would never let me live it down if I just stood by, and as a result I've stuck my nose into situations like this a time or two over the years... But I would really, really not want to draw the weapon. Given that I have never needed a weapon in the past for such a situation, I would hopefully not need it in this scenario. I don't want the legal headaches, and I'm quite happy not having to deal with any of the psychological traumas that typically accompany the taking of a life.
Frankly, the presence of the weapon complicates things. One of my major concerns would be how NOT to have to use it, followed by how to act effectively while not letting anybody else gain control of it.
Verbal warning and 911 call would be the obvious first steps. Coordination with other good samaritans, if available, would be a nice option here. Watch some reality TV whenever they show a good team of bouncers, or US Marshals, and see how often the pros opt for a one on one takedown if two or three can rush the guy instead. Help is good.
Next step, if deemed necessary, would be an attempt to physically dislodge the still conscious combatant. Ideally, it wouldn't only be me pulling the guy off the unconscious combatant. But if it were just me, unless the guy is a tank, double armbars work pretty well. So do certain chokes, but those open up a whole 'nother Pandora's box of legal and moral issues... Chokes and neck holds are inherently dangerous, and I can't recommend them to anybody who doesn't know how to apply them, or when and how to safely release them.
My mother once pulled me off of somebody by my right ear, but I don't think I'd try that approach, and I definitely can't recommend it. It was startlingly effective, though. Funny, too, even at the time.
From my limited experience in breaking up fights between humans, and somewhat more extensive experience in breaking up fights between large dogs (generally boxers, pits, dobies and shepherds - not trained fighting dogs, just out of control and excited wannabe alpha males at the dog park), it helps if you can stay cool even when physically engaged, and tell the person (or animal) to knock it off in a calm but take-no-bs voice. Panic or anger only escalate things further. Even when your adrenaline is up, you have to do your best not to show it. But if you can sound calm, the other person may stop struggling sooner.
Note 1: my voice stays nice and steady. My right eye may tic a bit if I'm really angry or scared, but my voice stays steady. This does take some practice....
With dogs or people, grabs work better from rear or flank. Easier to get the hold, harder for them to respond, and of course harder for them to see the tic in the right eye.
Note 2: hopefully, witness statements are in your favor when LEO's show up. I was very happy that they were, in the one case where things got to that point.
Note 3: Aikido, judo and ju-jitsu are really useful arts for learning how to stop somebody without necessarily having to do lasting physical damage. Option to do damage exists, but a lot of that depends on the other guy.
Here's a question for the CCW holders here: If you are really worried about defense of self and others, how much time do you spend on physical fitness and martial arts training? Situations which justify use of limited force are much more common that those which justify deadly force. And I'd hate to think that people in the forum would choose to draw a weapon because it's their only viable option for a physical intervention.