Posted: 3/20/2012 1:25:39 PM EDT
|
If a mob of kids threw a large projectile through your car window, that you are driving, causing massive trauma to the face of your loved-one? Heard about this BS on the news today. Trying to come up with a logical response if I were in a similar situation and being a CC holder. The kid that got his face smashed with the rock is in a coma at the moment....what the fuck is wrong with milwaukee kids
http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/143411026.html |
|
Quoted: If a mob of kids threw a large projectile through your car window, causing massive trauma to the face of your loved-one? Heard about this BS on the news today. Trying to come up with a logical response if I were in a similar situation and being a CC holder. The kid that got his face smashed with the rock is in a coma at the moment....what the fuck is wrong with milwaukee kids Before I see the news story, I'm going to make a prediction. AAR to come. Oh, and more likely it's that the parents don't care. ETA: Hmm. My predicition was completely wrong (I think, judging by the area). That's not too far from me... |
|
Before I see the news story, I'm going to make a prediction. AAR to come. Oh, and more likely it's that the parents don't care. ETA: Hmm. My predicition was completely wrong (I think, judging by the area). That's not too far from me... My point exactly, I live and work on the southside and drive with my wife quite often. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Aren't rocks considered weapons? Not trying to stir shit up, just curious. yes they can be considered weapons. the losers who threw the rock should be charged with attempted murder. quit slapping them on the wrist. But, but, but, they just kidz!!! 
|
|
If I was on my motorcycle, depending on the size of rock and proximity of thrower, I would try to GTFO even if it involved running red lights.
If i was in my truck, i would point it at them and gun it. Really though, we don't think of it that way, but rocks can be deadly. Anything larger than a pebble can kill you if you get hit hard enough. |
|
Quoted:
Sounds like someone attempting to make a forcible entry to the vehicle you are in. Castle Doctrine applies. Thats exactly what I was thinking, I just wanted to see what the hive said. Stand my ground also sounds like it may fit. The 6th incedent is the other reason I was pissed, this whole mob mentality is disturbing to say the least. Getting out of the vehicle to beat the shit outta some 15 year old would present its own problems... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sounds like someone attempting to make a forcible entry to the vehicle you are in. Castle Doctrine applies. Thats exactly what I was thinking, I just wanted to see what the hive said. Stand my ground also sounds like it may fit. The 6th incedent is the other reason I was pissed, this whole mob mentality is disturbing to say the least. Getting out of the vehicle to beat the shit outta some 15 year old would present its own problems... Wisconsin does not have "stand your ground". |
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Aren't rocks considered weapons? Not trying to stir shit up, just curious. yes they can be considered weapons. the losers who threw the rock should be charged with attempted murder. quit slapping them on the wrist. I've shot 3 guys who were throwing rocks, all GTG with JAG adn MPI. Course, that was a different country 
|
|
Unfortunately beating the shit out of a minor is going to land you in whole mess of trouble whether they "started it" or not. Imagine, sitting in jail while your loved one fights for their life. What a helpless feeling.
My heart goes out to the innocent(assuming they were innocent)people involved. If this type of behavior continues, groups/mobs/gangs of people should be dispursed by increased police patrols. The humanity and decent behavior is a thing of the past. Youth of today is so disrespectful because no one raises them to give a damn. One more reason to GTFO of cities ASAP. |
|
When I used to run EMS in Eau Claire county, a friend of mine responded to a rock thrown off an interstate bridge. It went through the windshield of a vehicle and crushed the chest cavity of the driver, killing him. His wife was in the passenger seat. A couple of kids did it. Hence, the bridges in that county now have high chain link fences that make it difficult to throw large rocks off those bridges.
Yeah, anyone who throws bowling balls at cars ought to be caught and appropriately punished. But once the rock has been thrown and you've driven past, the scuzbags no longer present a danger of imminent death or great bodily harm...so since the danger is over, it's no longer appropriate to employ deadly force. And I don't think a thrown rock is the same as trying to forcibly enter your vehicle...just in case anyone was going to take these frustrated statements as serious suggestions. |
|
I would have lazed that kid in his rock holding hand. |
|
Question for ya glenn, several actually..
In the case you mentioned, did they catch the scumbag? If so what was he charged with outside of murder? Also, part of my wondering comes in at, At what point does the rock (or other object) become a weapon? I guess that I wonder at the point of that just because a person is not actively throwing a rock (or other object) again, is it by level of crime that determines when he is no longer a threat? The offender obviously has the easy ability to pick up another rock and throw that one too, does he become a threat when he picks it up? Granted I know this all sounds like splitting legal hairs but to the average person I think that they would easily consider the person that threw the rock a threat. At the moment it sounds like, mind you sounds like, that since the person is not actively throwing a rock that they are not a threat. |
|
It is rather complex, but as a bottom line if you remember: the threat has a weapon, delivery system and intent , you are fine. Preclusion (preventative action) must also be implemented.
Without those factors, it will be difficult to defend your deadly force actions. To quote LESB: Preclusion example: Attacker is advancing with a 100,000 volt power line, putting the defender under imminent threat of death. The defender has a gun in one hand, and the power switch to turn off the voltage in the other. The defender is fully aware of both options and can consciously choose either action. Preclusion demands that the defender flip the switch instead of shooting. If you have a CCW through another state: Wisconsin uses the terms, “Intent, Weapon, and Delivery System.” Many other states use, “Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy.” They mean the same thing. Ability = weapon. Opportunity = delivery system. Jeopardy = intent. As for splitting hairs, you are correct. I have this fall into "What if?" situations. In other words, What if worms had machineguns? Then birds wouldn't fu(k with them. What I tell my students which they do not like to hear is that there are NO absolutes. It all comes down to the decision that occurs when the gavel is banged. You may have two identical situations in court that have two different results. All you can do is your best and hope for the best. This goes for anything from a fender bender to a deadly force situation. People argue all the time on this board about their opinions, but it is just that. Again, the only thing that counts is what happens when the gavel strikes. Hope this helps/clarifies. V OUT |
|
Quoted:
Question for ya glenn, several actually.. In the case you mentioned, did they catch the scumbag? If so what was he charged with outside of murder? Caught, yes. IIRC (and this was 20 years ago), got a juvenile conviction of something like manslaughter. Pretty much a slap on the wrist. Also, part of my wondering comes in at, At what point does the rock (or other object) become a weapon? I guess that I wonder at the point of that just because a person is not actively throwing a rock (or other object) again, is it by level of crime that determines when he is no longer a threat? The offender obviously has the easy ability to pick up another rock and throw that one too, does he become a threat when he picks it up? Granted I know this all sounds like splitting legal hairs but to the average person I think that they would easily consider the person that threw the rock a threat.
At the moment it sounds like, mind you sounds like, that since the person is not actively throwing a rock that they are not a threat. See variable's post on the bottom of page 1. Assuming you're in a car, you've probably already driven past before they're going to get a second rock on the way. But, yeah, to play "what if", we're standing in a room and I have a throwing knife in my hand and your gun is in your holster. I throw the knife at you. You draw and (understandably) want to shoot me. Guess what? I no longer present a threat of death or great bodily harm––I no longer have a knife. Yeah, I buried it in your chest, but I'm now unarmed. Say the knife missed you, and you put your boot on it, and you're a big powerful guy and I'm a wuss and have no realistic way of getting you off the knife. Yeah, I tried to kill you, but I no longer pose any threat and you shouldn't shoot me. Repeat––I tried to kill you, but the danger is past––deadly force no longer reasonable. And like variable says, this is all just "what if". People can always change up the scenario and say, "what then?" Well, these sorts of things are very fact-dependent. Just remember you need to be under imminent threat of death or great bodily harm, and have no reasonable alternative to using deadly force. With kids throwing rocks off the bridge, and you've already driven past, you don't really have this. Of course, another "what if" is what if you are on the bridge and see kids about to throw a bowling ball off the bridge? Should you shoot to protect some possible, theoretical third party driving on the interstate? |
|
So if once the object is thrown/gone and I don't had any more of the object I am no longer a threat, I shouldn't be shot...?
So if I go waltzing up to a guy and throw a grenade at him, if he survives the explosion he can't shoot me? So once I trigger and detonate my roadside bomb, since I don't have another bomb I'm in the clear? I don't get the logic behind that. |
|
Quoted:
Of course, another "what if" is what if you are on the bridge and see kids about to throw a bowling ball off the bridge? Should you shoot to protect some possible, theoretical third party driving on the interstate? My understanding is that yes, you would be justified in using force in order to prevent death or great bodily harm upon another. However.....If the kid is about to throw a bowling ball, how is shooting them magically going to stop the bowling ball dead in it's tracks? I probably would opt for "force" versus "deadly force" in that scenario. |
|
Quoted:
So if once the object is thrown/gone and I don't had any more of the object I am no longer a threat, I shouldn't be shot...? So if I go waltzing up to a guy and throw a grenade at him, if he survives the explosion he can't shoot me? So once I trigger and detonate my roadside bomb, since I don't have another bomb I'm in the clear? I don't get the logic behind that. Correct. There is no longer an immenent threat of death or great bodily harm. This isn't war, and you're not an LEO. Like it or not, once they're out of the fight and no longer have the means or ability to continue the attack/unlawful interference/etc....it's over. ETA:( I am not a lawyer. And from time to time, remnants of North Dakota laws pop in my head. I am from Wisconsin, but lived in ND for 5 years). |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
So if once the object is thrown/gone and I don't had any more of the object I am no longer a threat, I shouldn't be shot...? So if I go waltzing up to a guy and throw a grenade at him, if he survives the explosion he can't shoot me? So once I trigger and detonate my roadside bomb, since I don't have another bomb I'm in the clear? I don't get the logic behind that. Correct. There is no longer an immenent threat of death or great bodily harm. This isn't war, and you're not an LEO. Like it or not, once they're out of the fight and no longer have the means or ability to continue the attack/unlawful interference/etc....it's over. ETA:( I am not a lawyer. And from time to time, remnants of North Dakota laws pop in my head. I am from Wisconsin, but lived in ND for 5 years). Interesting. I guess if they no longer have a weapon or a means to deliver their weapon they are not a threat. |
|
Well glenn and variable,
I can see what you are talking about and I can understand the process behind them. A better way to describe all that is "this is what the written law says" and "what might transpire in the courts". The average person that doesn't know anything about the laws would have trouble distinguishing between these differences much less how they relate to LEO's . Granted those same laws pertain to the average Joe but the average Joe is not trained to the degree as LEO's. To me that starts to get a lilttle hazy then because a person that has not had the training would easily still percieve a threat and not know where the borders in the law are. It is sad to see that there is a big difference as to how things actually happen at that time, how the law intreprets the incident and how the courts intrepret the same incident. Granted most times there is not issues in how this goes. On the other hand in a case like this, the disparity is very large. I am sure some people would say "Hey lets make another law to cover this" but that also is an imperfect answer to this kind of situation. Personally I have no answer to cover this properly, about the only thing I could think of is the fact that kids or people that do these kinds of things be charged properly and no allowance for a plea bargin to a lesser charge. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you take a large enough object and drop it off a bridge over a highway that the possibility of killing someone exists. |
|
I think it is best to look at the WI DOJ Power Point slide #56 I expressed the info about above.
Link They are what I am talking about with definitions. They are for citizen training not LEOs. In turn, I would be far more concerned about civil action than legal. That in itself is a "what if" situation. I think no matter the situation, NOBODY can forsee what will happen thereafter legally. V OUT |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Question for ya glenn, several actually.. In the case you mentioned, did they catch the scumbag? If so what was he charged with outside of murder? Caught, yes. IIRC (and this was 20 years ago), got a juvenile conviction of something like manslaughter. Pretty much a slap on the wrist. Also, part of my wondering comes in at, At what point does the rock (or other object) become a weapon? I guess that I wonder at the point of that just because a person is not actively throwing a rock (or other object) again, is it by level of crime that determines when he is no longer a threat? The offender obviously has the easy ability to pick up another rock and throw that one too, does he become a threat when he picks it up? Granted I know this all sounds like splitting legal hairs but to the average person I think that they would easily consider the person that threw the rock a threat.
At the moment it sounds like, mind you sounds like, that since the person is not actively throwing a rock that they are not a threat. See variable's post on the bottom of page 1. Assuming you're in a car, you've probably already driven past before they're going to get a second rock on the way. But, yeah, to play "what if", we're standing in a room and I have a throwing knife in my hand and your gun is in your holster. I throw the knife at you. You draw and (understandably) want to shoot me. Guess what? I no longer present a threat of death or great bodily harm––I no longer have a knife. Yeah, I buried it in your chest, but I'm now unarmed. Say the knife missed you, and you put your boot on it, and you're a big powerful guy and I'm a wuss and have no realistic way of getting you off the knife. Yeah, I tried to kill you, but I no longer pose any threat and you shouldn't shoot me. Repeat––I tried to kill you, but the danger is past––deadly force no longer reasonable. And like variable says, this is all just "what if". People can always change up the scenario and say, "what then?" Well, these sorts of things are very fact-dependent. Just remember you need to be under imminent threat of death or great bodily harm, and have no reasonable alternative to using deadly force. With kids throwing rocks off the bridge, and you've already driven past, you don't really have this. Of course, another "what if" is what if you are on the bridge and see kids about to throw a bowling ball off the bridge? Should you shoot to protect some possible, theoretical third party driving on the interstate? In the scenario above in red... As long as your hands stay visible, I agree, there's no longer any threat. But if you move a hand behind your back, or into your jacket, or anywhere another knife may be hidden, I'd double-tap you right fucking now. You have already tried to kill me and have demonstrated your intentions. You will not get another attempt. If one of your hands is not visible, it's a reasonable assumption on my part you're trying again, and reaching for another knife to throw. I don't believe I need to see the 2nd knife before I fire. If you already stuck a knife in my chest, I'd shoot you anyway. If I did survive, I'd claim it was simultaneos... the bullets and knife passed each other in mid-air.
If I don't survive, who gives a shit. If I do, and my shots are accurate, you can't dispute my claim, and all the evidence I need is stuck in my chest. 
|
|
Quoted:
In the scenario above in red... As long as your hands stay visible, I agree, there's no longer any threat. But if you move a hand behind your back, or into your jacket, or anywhere another knife may be hidden, I'd double-tap you right fucking now. You have already tried to kill me and have demonstrated your intentions. You will not get another attempt. If one of your hands is not visible, it's a reasonable assumption on my part you're trying again, and reaching for another knife to throw. I don't believe I need to see the 2nd knife before I fire. If you already stuck a knife in my chest, I'd shoot you anyway. If I did survive, I'd claim it was simultaneos... the bullets and knife passed each other in mid-air.
If I don't survive, who gives a shit. If I do, and my shots are accurate, you can't dispute my claim, and all the evidence I need is stuck in my chest.
rfb, When I read most of your posts, I think that you normally have your stuff together...but you've really screwed this one up. If you have reason to believe he's still armed, why would you only double-tap?
As I'm sure you probably understood, I was trying to illustrate a hypothetical situation where it was obvious the person no longer posed a threat. If they appeared to be reaching into their waistband for the next knife they were going to throw, that would be a different "what if." 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
In the scenario above in red... As long as your hands stay visible, I agree, there's no longer any threat. But if you move a hand behind your back, or into your jacket, or anywhere another knife may be hidden, I'd double-tap you right fucking now. You have already tried to kill me and have demonstrated your intentions. You will not get another attempt. If one of your hands is not visible, it's a reasonable assumption on my part you're trying again, and reaching for another knife to throw. I don't believe I need to see the 2nd knife before I fire. If you already stuck a knife in my chest, I'd shoot you anyway. If I did survive, I'd claim it was simultaneos... the bullets and knife passed each other in mid-air.
If I don't survive, who gives a shit. If I do, and my shots are accurate, you can't dispute my claim, and all the evidence I need is stuck in my chest.
rfb, When I read most of your posts, I think that you normally have your stuff together...but you've really screwed this one up. If you have reason to believe he's still armed, why would you only double-tap?
As I'm sure you probably understood, I was trying to illustrate a hypothetical situation where it was obvious the person no longer posed a threat. If they appeared to be reaching into their waistband for the next knife they were going to throw, that would be a different "what if." I was just "funnin" with ya, Glenn. I know and understood the hypothetical situation you laid out. "Devil's advocate" was all I was doing. Things are never that black & white, there's always some grey. 
BTW... thanks for the compliment. It's taken me 62 years to get my shit together. 
|
|
Quoted:
When I used to run EMS in Eau Claire county, a friend of mine responded to a rock thrown off an interstate bridge. It went through the windshield of a vehicle and crushed the chest cavity of the driver, killing him. His wife was in the passenger seat. A couple of kids did it. Hence, the bridges in that county now have high chain link fences that make it difficult to throw large rocks off those bridges. Yeah, anyone who throws bowling balls at cars ought to be caught and appropriately punished. But once the rock has been thrown and you've driven past, the scuzbags no longer present a danger of imminent death or great bodily harm...so since the danger is over, it's no longer appropriate to employ deadly force. And I don't think a thrown rock is the same as trying to forcibly enter your vehicle...just in case anyone was going to take these frustrated statements as serious suggestions. This, and is it also more appropriate to seek medical attention for your severely injured friend, or stop and seek revenge? I have not seen once where anyone is considering how to seek medical help, only whether or not they can now use deadly force. Priorities... |