Multiple attackers in a parking lot...

[SensibleManiac]

I would say be very aware of your environment, try to smell danger as much as possible and get out as quick as possible.

You can never know 100% what youre up against so get out as soon as you can.

 

[padre]

Sometimes and maybe back in the day. Now-a-days they're more... violence escalation proned than before. Whipping out a knife may get you in worse when all they wanted to do was just whup your *** but over the last few years it's "OH! NOW you go and pull a knife on me huh boah? Welllll c'mon then! " and there's a scary smile on their faces.
So you'd better be ready to face manslaughter charges.

Yeah, and in the cases I was thinking of, they already had weapons in hand. I can only recall one time I produced a weapon against an unarmed assailant, and that guy had me up off the ground by my throat bouncing the back of my head against a brick wall. At that moment, I felt ready to face the charges.

And when I mentioned older brothers, I meant *their* older brothers. heh

"Hey, Dude. Your kid brother just kicked the s*** out of me."

 

[searcher]

If I'm carrying then no doubt, I'll draw down on multiple attackers in a heart beat. I think we're speaking more to some simple rules or things you can do when you don't have a firearm handy.

I understand. That is why I carry 99% of the time. If I cannot carry, it is not very far away.

 

[geezer]

"...over the last few years it's "OH! NOW you go and pull a knife on me huh boah? Welllll c'mon then! " and there's a scary smile on their faces.
So you'd better be ready to face manslaughter charges.

Yeah, that's very true. There's well known case that's winding through the appeals process in the courts here in Arizona. An older guy, a retired teacher, was hiking when he was set upon by a pack of dogs. He pulled his gun and shot a "warning shot", when the dog's owner suddenly appeared... a mentally disturbed homeless guy living out of his car with his illegally unleashed dogs. He was a big, scarey looking guy, and it seems he charged the old dude screaming like a maniac, and ignoring commands to stop and stay back. So the old teacher shot the aggressor and killed him. But, there were no witnesses.

When it went to trial, some of the testimony about similar violent outbursts in the attacker's past weren't admitted as testimony. He was portrayed as a big, gentle bear of a guy, who loved his dogs but had some mental problems (cue the violins). On the other hand, the teacher's interest in guns and belief in the right to self defense was carefully scrutinized. End result, after a couple of years of investigations and subsequent trial, this trigger happy "gun nut" was sentenced to something like fifteen years in the pen. Since he's old already, that could be a life sentence.

Last thing I saw about it, a couple of weeks back in the local paper, the guy had been granted an appeal and will be able to go back to court and try to reverse the decision. Sounds like fun, eh? So for those of you who carry, of especially if you like knives (the assassin's weapon) I suggest you try avoidance, de-escalation, and finally, escaping before you resort to using a weapon.

 

[seasoned]

Yeah, that's very true. There's well known case that's winding through the appeals process in the courts here in Arizona. An older guy, a retired teacher, was hiking when he was set upon by a pack of dogs. He pulled his gun and shot a "warning shot", when the dog's owner suddenly appeared... a mentally disturbed homeless guy living out of his car with his illegally unleashed dogs. He was a big, scarey looking guy, and it seems he charged the old dude screaming like a maniac, and ignoring commands to stop and stay back. So the old teacher shot the aggressor and killed him. But, there were no witnesses.

When it went to trial, some of the testimony about similar violent outbursts in the attacker's past weren't admitted as testimony. He was portrayed as a big, gentle bear of a guy, who loved his dogs but had some mental problems (cue the violins). On the other hand, the teacher's interest in guns and belief in the right to self defense was carefully scrutinized. End result, after a couple of years of investigations and subsequent trial, this trigger happy "gun nut" was sentenced to something like fifteen years in the pen. Since he's old already, that could be a life sentence.

Last thing I saw about it, a couple of weeks back in the local paper, the guy had been granted an appeal and will be able to go back to court and try to reverse the decision. Sounds like fun, eh? So for those of you who carry, of especially if you like knives (the assassin's weapon) I suggest you try avoidance, de-escalation, and finally, escaping before you resort to using a weapon.

A big scary guy running at you, "unarmed", is no cause for lethal force. Now if he has a knife in his hand, that is another story. This guy with the gun gives everyone with a legal permit, a bad rap. It all boils down to training, and knowing when lethal force is appropriate.

 

[jks9199]

A big scary guy running at you, "unarmed", is no cause for lethal force. Now if he has a knife in his hand, that is another story. This guy with the gun gives everyone with a legal permit, a bad rap. It all boils down to training, and knowing when lethal force is appropriate.

Actually, it's not that simple.

A "big scary guy" running at me might not justify lethal force; it would depend on how big, why he was scary, and my condition at the moment (injuries, who is with me, etc.).

But that same "big scary guy" running at my wife or mother? Entirely different situation, and they may well be justified in lethal force.

 

[celtic_crippler]

3 or more attackers and I say lethal force is justified. Opinions will vary.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Actually, it's not that simple.

A "big scary guy" running at me might not justify lethal force; it would depend on how big, why he was scary, and my condition at the moment (injuries, who is with me, etc.).

But that same "big scary guy" running at my wife or mother? Entirely different situation, and they may well be justified in lethal force.

This was my thought as well.

If it was a she and she was 5' and 100 lbs if that and I am 6'3" and 300 lbs, then I could hurt her seriously just falling on her.

If you are injured and unable to get away?

If you are afraid that the dogs are trained and this is a coordinated attack?

Lots of things can trigger what the reasonable man would fear for their life.

The issue is can you prove it or argue it in a court of law.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

It's less to do with what you *did* as it is to do with what you *say* and what they can *prove*.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Down in "The Study", Bill Mattocks started a thread on a story about a racist attack in Canada. Three white toughs jumped a black man, Mr. Jay Phillips in a parking lot. Mr. Phillips put up a pretty good fight, although at one point it went to the ground and things looked pretty bad for him. Like everyone says, the ground game doesn't work against multiple attackers. Fortunately, he made it back to his feet and soon the three punks decided they'd had enough, piled back into their pickup and took off.

Anyway, after thinking about this for awhile, I thought it might be a good topic to revisit here. I teach high school and one thing I hear from the kids I work with is that ganging up on people to beat the crap out of them is getting so common that it's becoming the norm these days. A lot of kids don't see anything wrong with it. In fact, some feel that going into a "fair fight", one against one, is downright stupid. Well if that's becoming the social norm, or the reality for our times, maybe it deserves a lot more attention. What strategies do you apply in dealing with multiple attackers. And if you were Mr. Phillips in that parking lot, how would you have handled the situation?

We address it in class. We even have them demonstrate on some higher ranked tests.

Look to limit the approaches of the bad guys. Line up one or two and try to keep them from surrounding you.

I know I have in the past handled it in multiple ways all depending upon the situation. From taking one person out fast and hard and letting ever one see what they were facing, to just telling them I was going to take the first person out fast and hard, describing in detail the pain they woudl be facing. And of course stuff inbetween the two above examples.

 

[seasoned]

Actually, it's not that simple.

A "big scary guy" running at me might not justify lethal force; it would depend on how big, why he was scary, and my condition at the moment (injuries, who is with me, etc.).

But that same "big scary guy" running at my wife or mother? Entirely different situation, and they may well be justified in lethal force.

I would say that, that would depend on what state you live in, and how much money you have, and how good your lawyer is. In NYS you had better have a very good reason, before you draw on someone, let alone kill them.

 

[blackxpress]

Just curious. A big scary looking guy runs at a police officer while screaming like a maniac. Said big scary looking guy ignores the officer's commands to stop so the officer shoots him. Will that be considered justified or not?

 

[padre]

Just curious. A big scary looking guy runs at a police officer while screaming like a maniac. Said big scary looking guy ignores the officer's commands to stop so the officer shoots him. Will that be considered justified or not?

Any place in North America that I can think of, the incident would warrant investigation. With luck, the officer's vehicle would have sufficient AV recording of all the relevant details to make a more sure determination.

I live in MS, and even non-LEO citizens have a fairly wide range of legally-recognized rights to employ lethal force against scary people running at us. But whether private citizen or badged official, you can expect there to be investigations and tremendous inconvenience.

I hope never to have to use lethal force against anybody under any circumstance, but if I do, I hope at least the whole thing is fully recorded in a legally-admissible manner.

 

[jks9199]

Just curious. A big scary looking guy runs at a police officer while screaming like a maniac. Said big scary looking guy ignores the officer's commands to stop so the officer shoots him. Will that be considered justified or not?

Any place in North America that I can think of, the incident would warrant investigation. With luck, the officer's vehicle would have sufficient AV recording of all the relevant details to make a more sure determination.

I live in MS, and even non-LEO citizens have a fairly wide range of legally-recognized rights to employ lethal force against scary people running at us. But whether private citizen or badged official, you can expect there to be investigations and tremendous inconvenience.

I hope never to have to use lethal force against anybody under any circumstance, but if I do, I hope at least the whole thing is fully recorded in a legally-admissible manner.

Lots of agencies still don't have in-car cameras. Even then, or with any camera system, it's only a single point of view, and it may not be clear. Look at some of the discussions here about controversial fights on TV -- and they often have a couple of camera angles! Or look at the LA cop who kicked the suspect in the head a few weeks ago, caught by a TV camera in the sky. I still don't know whether he was justified or not...

Reality? You charge me, ignore my commands, and I'm using force. It may be my gun, or it may be empty hands, or anything in-between. It just depends on the exact circumstances as well as what's already in my hand. I'm clearing a house, my gun's out... and you stand a good chance of me shooting you if you ignore my commands. It's not certain; I can holster up and go hands on... but the simple fact is that the gun is out. If I'm walking down a street, and suddenly confronted? I'm probably going to end up meeting that with empty hands at least initially; everything else is stowed away on my belt.

Would I be justified? Well, I'm going to have to explain what I did and why. It'll certainly be an investigation. In my area, unless I screwed up -- I probably won't be criminally charged. Whether I'll keep my job is a different question. And it's guaranteed that I'll be sued.

 

[padre]

Would I be justified? Well, I'm going to have to explain what I did and why. It'll certainly be an investigation. In my area, unless I screwed up -- I probably won't be criminally charged. Whether I'll keep my job is a different question. And it's guaranteed that I'll be sued.

Yup. "Justified" isn't necessarily a simple matter. The officer on the beat has to make a judgment call and then account for actions taken in a given situation afterward.

That's where training, training, training comes in handy, as well as some vetting of individuals who seek careers in law enforcement.

Cultures vary. In my state, any individual who wishes to carry a firearm or obtain a concealed carry permit is legally able to do so within certain restrictions (felony conviction, etc.). The operating assumption is that adults are capable of owning and using firearms.

When I was 15, I was once in the wrong place at the wrong time in the wrong company and found the barrel of a LEO's revolver pointed at me in the line of duty. But I didn't fear for one second that he had any intention of firing that weapon at me.

I was unarmed, but if I'd dashed at him at that moment, I can easily enough imagine that he would've discharged the weapon into me in self-defense. Neither of us would've considered that a good day.

But he and I were both in our right minds, I was capable of taking direction and answering questions, and we never saw each other again.

 

[MJS]

A big scary guy running at you, "unarmed", is no cause for lethal force. Now if he has a knife in his hand, that is another story. This guy with the gun gives everyone with a legal permit, a bad rap. It all boils down to training, and knowing when lethal force is appropriate.

One person, no, I agree, lethal force shouldn't be the first option. A group of people...well, seeing that they just upped the odds against me, that may be a different story.

 

[geezer]

A big scary guy running at you, "unarmed", is no cause for lethal force. Now if he has a knife in his hand, that is another story. This guy with the gun gives everyone with a legal permit, a bad rap. It all boils down to training, and knowing when lethal force is appropriate.

I don't know, Seasoned. Imagine you are not a martial artist, a LEO or anything of the kind. Instead imagine that your're a small, sixty-something, retired school teacher alone on a remote hiking trail, and you are suddenly attacked by a pack of three ferocious dogs followed by a big, scary, and absolutely enraged, screaming man. In spite of your warnings and your gun, he and his dogs keep on coming. You are absolutely in fear for your life. And there is no place to run, no place to hide.

If, (and that's a big IF, I know) but again... If the defendant's story is true, and that IS exactly what happened, you're telling me that he didn't have a right to defend himself? Please explain.

 

[jks9199]

One person, no, I agree, lethal force shouldn't be the first option. A group of people...well, seeing that they just upped the odds against me, that may be a different story.

Again -- it's just not that easy.

"Big scary guy" vs. BJ Penn? BJ would probably have a hard time justifying resorting to lethal force.

"Big scary guy" vs. me? Depends. Am I sick, injured, already exhausted by a foot pursuit?

"Big scary guy" vs. this guy

? Probably.

The justification for the use of lethal force is that you reasonably were in fear of imminent grievous bodily harm or death. Part of the determination of the reasonableness will consider any size/age/physical disparities between the two people.

I'm not familiar enough with the case geezer described to categorically state it was or was not reasonable. I will note that, unless you're on the high seas facing pirates or something similar, a "warning shot" is not a good idea, and a waste of a bullet that you could put where it'll do some good.

 

[MJS]

Again -- it's just not that easy.

"Big scary guy" vs. BJ Penn? BJ would probably have a hard time justifying resorting to lethal force.

"Big scary guy" vs. me? Depends. Am I sick, injured, already exhausted by a foot pursuit?

"Big scary guy" vs. this guy

? Probably.

The justification for the use of lethal force is that you reasonably were in fear of imminent grievous bodily harm or death. Part of the determination of the reasonableness will consider any size/age/physical disparities between the two people.

I'm not familiar enough with the case geezer described to categorically state it was or was not reasonable. I will note that, unless you're on the high seas facing pirates or something similar, a "warning shot" is not a good idea, and a waste of a bullet that you could put where it'll do some good.

I wouldn't put BJ, despite his UFC career, in some superman category, no more than I'd put a martial artist, for the simple fact that training, while it should give us an edge, does not make us supermen. I'd also think that if this went to court, the judge is going to look at the MAist in a different light, compared to some unskilled average Joe citizen getting attacked. The belief is that the MAist, should possess the skills to determine how much/little injury they inflict.

In any case, regardless of whether we're talking about the average Joe or the MAist, both can still be in fear of their lives, therefore, going by your def. of lethal force, be justified to use it. Evn moreso, IMO, due to the fact that we're grossly outnumbered and I'd think the chances of injury to us are greater, vs if we were fighting 1 person.

 

[jks9199]

I wouldn't put BJ, despite his UFC career, in some superman category, no more than I'd put a martial artist, for the simple fact that training, while it should give us an edge, does not make us supermen. I'd also think that if this went to court, the judge is going to look at the MAist in a different light, compared to some unskilled average Joe citizen getting attacked. The belief is that the MAist, should possess the skills to determine how much/little injury they inflict.

In any case, regardless of whether we're talking about the average Joe or the MAist, both can still be in fear of their lives, therefore, going by your def. of lethal force, be justified to use it. Evn moreso, IMO, due to the fact that we're grossly outnumbered and I'd think the chances of injury to us are greater, vs if we were fighting 1 person.

I wasn't intending to set BJ Penn aside as some sort of superman. He's just in the top ranks of the lightweight divisions; I specifically wanted a smaller person who's a top combative athlete. They're going to be less able to justify using greater force against an unarmed person merely because the guy's bigger. He'd be justified, again, if he were in imminent fear of serious bodily harm or death.

Me? I'm, as some local DJs would say, a "person of larger carriage." I'm a big guy... but I definitely could stand to lose a good bit of weight, too. Doesn't mean I'm not fit, though... But, like I said, I could be injured, I could have just run a foot race, lots of things can effect my situation.

The Six Flags guy? Picked him as an easy, fun example of an older person. Again, I can think of some examples that would be a whole different situation; see Bob's Masters gallery for a few of them!

Oh... and to return to the original topic: Multiple attackers in a parking lot get shot as soon as I can create enough distance to draw and engage them. If for some reason I can't shoot them, there are tactics like stacking opponents, using obstacles, and the like to improve my chances -- but really, if I have to deal with them while unarmed, I'm trying to get out of there as fast as possible.