What do we do?

[CJS3]

I do agree that you have to protect yourself and your family. I would much rather meet these punks here in Virginia than in Wisconsin. But I still worry about everyone scattering and me standing over a dead 15 year old by myself.

Just make sure you kill more than one.

[tombogan03884]

I don't care if it's 8 year old girls, If they attack you at least some should wind up cooling on the ground.

[Badgersmilk]

I'm at a total loss how anyone who was in so much as cub scouts would hesitate to remove the threat in that situation...  

As far as everyone scattering and leaving you standing over a dead kid (which I honestly have no doubt would happen)...  Just make sure you put the gun back in it's holster before the cops show up!  And kick the little F'er in the head a good one before they get there to be sure he's dead.  

I grew out of touchy feelyness a looooonnnng time ago.

Tom's right.  If she somehow poses a threat to my family, a little girl carrying a box of kittens is no different than Hodgy with an RPG.

Never liked cats anyway!   

[tt11758]

One thing nobody has taken into account here is this:  As I understand it, while Wisconsin recently passed a "Shall Issue" law, it is not yet in effect, and there are currently no laws allowing concealed carry in that state.  As a result, at this point in time it wouldn't be the shooting of the violent little bastards that would get you prison time, but simply the act of carrying the instrument of your defense itself.


That being said, the scenario, as originally described, brings to mind the scene from Tombstone where Wyatt Earp (with the muzzle of his gun against Ike Clanton's forehead) utters the line, "You're not as stupid as you look Ike."

[Rastus]

DGF no doubt you are a moral and considerate person.  You want to do the right thing.  I'm 55 now and I would ask that you contemplate that there has been a paradign shift in the morality of the nation.

You obviously do not want to violate the law which is commendable.  

There was a belief in the law establishing boundaries and from that, somehow, protection for the populace.  

I also would bet that you are willing to lay your life down for your wife and family.  No questions asked, fair exchange.

The respect for the law is so ingrained in us, so supplanted by media and policiticans, that we may exchange that which is good and precious for an ideal that is at times out-of-place.  If I believe my wife or children are in lethal danger from a mob I will serve the time or face the executioner through the legal system.  That is to say my sacrifice is to subject myself to the law and collect the result in exchange for protecting my family.  It is similar to laying down one's life for their family but in a different context.

You should ask the question of yourself, "Was I constrained by a normally upright respect of the law to such an extent that I would have jepordized or sacrficed my wife in exchange for avoiding violation of a law that does not morally apply to this situation and that will be used against me?  Would I fail to act in the best interest of my familly to avoid prosecution (not that you are "scared of prosectuion, but that it is a act of law violation) and in that exchange the life of a family member to be politically and or legally correct under the law?"

This is not a logic path that my parent's generation had to consider.  It is, however, the moral dilema which someone faces every day in this nation which is,  sadly,  no longer the wonderful nation which you grew up in.

[Sponsor]

[DGF]

I think we are talking about a complex situation here, not one that goes Threat-Bang. We are talking about a situation where even a police officer could not apply deadly force. If a police officer killed an unarmed assailant, with some exceptions, he would probably be facing a jury, and likely some prison time. Even in the common, " HE REACHED FOR HIS WAISTBAND" scenario he is on very shaky ground. When was the last time you saw riot police draw their weapons and shoot rioters, even when faced with rocks and bottles?

We are all different in our ability to assess a threat. I may react sooner than some of you or vice/versa. Some of the nervous persuasion may even react way before necessary. It is where the rubber hits the road that I am concerned with. Bernard Goetz was charged with murder and several other serious charges. A favorable jury found him not guilty because the guys he shot had long rap sheets and were admittedly on their way to commit robbery. And they were threatening not only Bernard but other subway passengers.

Lets now take another look at Bernard. Four black kids get on the subway, they are loud and their behavior could easily be construed as threatening. They are dressed like thugs. Bernard shoots them after he feels threatened. It turns out that these kids have no police records, they are currently attending school, and they claim that they were listening to music on their IPods and not threatening anyone but singing along to some rap music. Music that had threatening lyrics. Bernard might well be still serving his prison sentence.

I might shoot an 8year old girl with a box of kittens if this were Nam and smoke was pouring out of the butt of one of the kittens. But its not. It does boil down to what would I do. As I have said, no one will injure my wife in my presence, so yes, I would do whatever is necessary to protect her including deadly force.  But there may be some very severe consequences tied to my decision. I would like to see MB tackle this question on TBD.

[Solus]

Great discussion here.

But here is how it looks from my point of view.

The moral issue is:  If I feel threatened, I will defend myself with deadly force, and not feel guilt.

The legal issue:  A jury might not see it as self defense and find me guilty of some form of assault, manslaughter or murder charge.

The resolution (for me):  If I truly felt threatened as I mentioned in the Moral issue, I would believe that if I don't defend myself I will end up dead or, through luck, only severely injured.  If I even consider not defending myself because of what the legal consequences might be, perhaps I don't feel all that threatened after all.

I read some pointers about  home defense.  The thing to say to the Officer is  "He said he was going to kill me and I believed  him".  Well, if I truly believe they are going to harm me, I will act.  If not I will attempt to withdraw until I am safe or cornered with no resort but to defend myself.  

In any case, if i believe the threat of death or severe harm is imminent, I will defend myself and hope my skill is enough that I will live to defend myself in court if it comes to that.

There is no doubt that a when a flash mob harasses someone, it is not to give them a good laugh or warm feeling, it is to bully them, frighten them and make them feel threatened.  If they do a good job of it, they pay the consequences no matter what their true limits might have been.

[david86440]

Here it is a mute point about carrying at the fairgrounds as they did have metal detectors one year. Not sure if they still do but it was like going through airport security due to past shootings and gang fights.

I don't go to the fair because I know I can't carry.

I couldn't even get in with my dog when I tried a few yrs back. So I've never gone back.

[MikeBjerum]

DGF:

1.  You must be a "reluctant participant;"  You didn't look for or instigate the situation.
2.  You must be reasonably in immediate fear of "death or great bodily harm;"  The "reasonable man" would be fearful of death or debilitating bodily harm as a result of the continuing situation.
3.  No lesser force will serve, making deadly force necessary;  You have no choice but to deploy the weapon or actions you chose for the given threat.
4.  Retreat is not practical;  Back to #1 - You chose to not be in this situation, and you can neither defuse the situation or walk away from it.

From the standards for the use of deadly force or potentially use of deadly force in the State of Minnesota submitted with no further comment.

Ok, one comment:

Never draw, display or deploy* a weapon unless you intend to use it to its fullest intent - shoot to kill, stab or cut to kill or disable, spray pepper spray to incapacitate.

*Showing a weapon, displaying a weapon, threatening with or about a weapon, or firing a gun into the air.

[DGF]

" 2.  You must be reasonably in immediate fear of "death or great bodily harm;"  The "reasonable man" would be fearful of death or debilitating bodily harm as a result of the continuing situation."

This is what I'm talking about. What if I am only in fear of being punched in the mouth or pushed or kicked. Certainly those could cause debilitating bodily harm but they would not be easily defended in court without stretching the truth. How much superficial damage ( non debilitating badly harm) would you allow an assailant to inflict on you before you resorted to deadly force? What if they slapped you? There is an entire gamut of things that could escalate up to deadly force. Someone running past you body checking you into fence or a parked car, or someone taunting you, spitting on you, any number of maddening actions that would make you want to shoot someone. What if they called you names and said they were going to kick your ass?  What if they surrounded you and threw dog crap at you? These things happen during mob actions. Police officers have to put up with it in every riot they respond to.

In all those scenarios I have outlined I would feel greatly threatened, particularly if my wife were with me, but would that be enough to shoot someone.

I kind of agree with the no brandishing of weapons. I say kind of because I have a close friend that was involved in a road rage incident where the other driver got out of his car with a billyclub in his hand, and started to approach my friends car. My friend stepped out of his car and put his revolver in the holster on his belt , he had the pistol in a holster in the car, when the other driver saw the pistol being put into the holster he got back in his car and drove off. Is that brandishing?