Fatal Chicago Beating - What could a bystander have done?

[wheelgunslinger]

Thanks for that, Deanimator. I was trying to find a nice way to explain that.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

I know a gal who will never forgive her first husband for taking her to live in Chicago.

 

[THE DARK KNIGHT]

Shooting the bad guys in a situation like this would only make you the assailant and the bad guys the victims. The news media and the anti's would have a field day with that. It would be just what they needed in order to draw attention away from their unwillingness to address the root problems, that are the cause of melees like this, and onto guns.

LOL, this is the kinda drivel I was talkin about before. I know it's fun to talk about the big media straw man, but trust me. You pull a gun on an inner city gang in the middle of a little rumble, CBS and the Brady Campaign are gonna be the least of your worries pal.

 

[hank327]

Deanimator and Jeff White have it right. If I came across such a scene, I would immediately leave and call 911 as I was doing so. I remember reading about an incident that occurred in Northern Ireland some years ago that has a parallel to this one. Two British Army SAS troopers were working undercover in a Catholic neighborhood in Ulster. I don't remember the details, but somehow they were made for what they were and attacked by a mob. Although they were in an automobile and armed with Browning Hi-Powers, the mob was able to drag them from the car and kill them both. So if that can happen to two highly trained SAS troopers what do you think will happen to you acting all alone in a similar situation?

I once walked into a riot one night in downtown Frankfurt, Germany. To be specific, it was in the Hauptbahnhof. I got off my train and into the middle of a melee of riot police and rioters throwing bottles and bricks. Although not the same as this incident, I can tell you it was it was a totally unexpected and confusing situation. I did then as I would do now and got out of Dodge post haste. Getting involved in other folks fights is a very low percentage undertaking.

 

[THE DARK KNIGHT]

Deanimator and Jeff White have it right. If I came across such a scene, I would immediately leave and call 911 as I was doing so. I remember reading about an incident that occurred in Northern Ireland some years ago that has a parallel to this one. Two British Army SAS troopers were working undercover in a Catholic neighborhood in Ulster. I don't remember the details, but somehow they were made for what they were and attacked by a mob. Although they were in an automobile and armed with Browning Hi-Powers, the mob was able to drag them from the car and kill them both. So if that can happen to two highly trained SAS troopers what do you think will happen to you acting all alone in a similar situation?

I once walked into a riot one night in downtown Frankfurt, Germany. To be specific, it was in the Hauptbahnhof. I got off my train and into the middle of a melee of riot police and rioters throwing bottles and bricks. Although not the same as this incident, I can tell you it was it was a totally unexpected and confusing situation. I did then as I would do now and got out of Dodge post haste. Getting involved in other folks fights is a very low percentage undertaking

GOod to see there's at least a few people on here who are realistic

 

[YaNi]

Read this article

RUN, RUN, RUN!

An officer and his dog were confronted by a mob of 60 thugs. They assaulted the officer, they punched him, they threw bottles at him, they taunted the officer to shoot. They even threatened his life, "Some members of the crowd told the officer that "he was not going to leave the scene alive," according to police."

Luckily his mates showed up just in time. Had the cop drawn his weapon and fired, he would have been in the morgue. If an officer and his dog can't defuse a mob, what is average joe schmoe citizen gonna do?

From that point on, all patrols in that area are conducted with two patrol cars line astern.

 

[Darkninja]

Doing anything other than getting the hell out of dodge seems like a terrible idea. I read through most of the responses and it kind of scares me the amount of misinformation that is being thrown out, like shooting the "leader", or firing warning shots.

 

[THE DARK KNIGHT]

I read through most of the responses and it kind of scares me the amount of misinformation that is being thrown out, like shooting the "leader", or firing warning shots.

It's cause too many people spend all their time reading internet gun forums, going to CCW classes, and living in their sheltered environment and not the real world.

 

[Deanimator]

If I came across such a scene, I would immediately leave and call 911 as I was doing so.

I wouldn't even dial 911, but if you do, I HIGHLY recommend that you do so ANONYMOUSLY from a payphone safely removed from the scene of the disturbance. The LAST thing on earth you want to become is an identifiable witness.

You don't want to become involved... in ANY way.

Again, this applies strictly to Chicago. A few months ago in downtown Cleveland, I saw a homeless guy selling the homeless newspaper, wrestling on the ground with some other guy, around the corner from the Terminal Tower. I was on my way to take the Rapid home and rapped on the window of a cop car parked near the Tower to tell the cops about the fight. Here, I've got nothing to fear from the cops, and the ability to protect myself from the combatants, should it be necessary. The cops thanked me for notifying them. They didn't even ask my name.

 

[drjoker]

Chicago is Obamaland. There's nothing you can do....

Chicago is bamaOLand where you have no Castle Doctrine and no right to defend yourself. You are expected to be unarmed and "retreat" when attacked. You can call 911 and pray for the victim(s). That's all you can do in bamaOland.

BTW, I'm black and I don't like bamaO. Does that make ME racist?!

 

[Jeff White]

Chicago is bamaOLand where you have no Castle Doctrine and no right to defend yourself.

Chicago is in Illinois and it's home rule does not override Illinois very good laws on self defense.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...&SeqEnd=9300000&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961.

(720 ILCS 5/Art. 7 heading)
ARTICLE 7. JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE; EXONERATION

(720 ILCS 5/7‑1) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑1)
Sec. 7‑1. Use of force in defense of person.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.
(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7‑4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93‑832, eff. 7‑28‑04.)

(720 ILCS 5/7‑2) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑2)
Sec. 7‑2. Use of force in defense of dwelling.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:
(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner, and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or offer of personal violence to, him or another then in the dwelling, or
(2) He reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.
(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7‑4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93‑832, eff. 7‑28‑04.)

(720 ILCS 5/7‑3) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑3)
Sec. 7‑3. Use of force in defense of other property.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with either real property (other than a dwelling) or personal property, lawfully in his possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his immediate family or household or of a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7‑4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93‑832, eff. 7‑28‑04.)

(720 ILCS 5/7‑4) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑4)
Sec. 7‑4. Use of force by aggressor.
The justification described in the preceding Sections of this Article is not available to a person who:
(a) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(b) Initially provokes the use of force against himself, with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant; or
(c) Otherwise initially provokes the use of force against himself, unless:
(1) Such force is so great that he reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, and that he has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(2) In good faith, he withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)

(720 ILCS 5/7‑5) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑5)
Sec. 7‑5. Peace officer's use of force in making arrest. (a) A peace officer, or any person whom he has summoned or directed to assist him, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. He is justified in the use of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to effect the arrest and of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest. However, he is justified in using force likely to cause death or great bodily harm only when he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or such other person, or when he reasonably believes both that:
(1) Such force is necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by resistance or escape; and
(2) The person to be arrested has committed or attempted a forcible felony which involves the infliction or threatened infliction of great bodily harm or is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon, or otherwise indicates that he will endanger human life or inflict great bodily harm unless arrested without delay.
(b) A peace officer making an arrest pursuant to an invalid warrant is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if the warrant were valid, unless he knows that the warrant is invalid.
(Source: P.A. 84‑1426.)

(720 ILCS 5/7‑6) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑6)
Sec. 7‑6. Private person's use of force in making arrest.
(a) A private person who makes, or assists another private person in making a lawful arrest is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if he were summoned or directed by a peace officer to make such arrest, except that he is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm only when he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another.
(b) A private person who is summoned or directed by a peace officer to assist in making an arrest which is unlawful, is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if the arrest were lawful, unless he knows that the arrest is unlawful.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)

(720 ILCS 5/7‑7) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑7)
Sec. 7‑7. Private person's use of force in resisting arrest. A person is not authorized to use force to resist an arrest which he knows is being made either by a peace officer or by a private person summoned and directed by a peace officer to make the arrest, even if he believes that the arrest is unlawful and the arrest in fact is unlawful.
(Source: P.A. 86‑1475.)

(720 ILCS 5/7‑8) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑8)
Sec. 7‑8. Force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.
(a) Force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm, within the meaning of Sections 7‑5 and 7‑6 includes:
(1) The firing of a firearm in the direction of the person to be arrested, even though no intent exists to kill or inflict great bodily harm; and
(2) The firing of a firearm at a vehicle in which the person to be arrested is riding.
(b) A peace officer's discharge of a firearm using ammunition designed to disable or control an individual without creating the likelihood of death or great bodily harm shall not be considered force likely to cause death or great bodily harm within the meaning of Sections 7‑5 and 7‑6.
(Source: P.A. 90‑138, eff. 1‑1‑98.)

(720 ILCS 5/7‑9) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑9)
Sec. 7‑9. Use of force to prevent escape.
(a) A peace officer or other person who has an arrested person in his custody is justified in the use of such force to prevent the escape of the arrested person from custody as he would be justified in using if he were arresting such person.
(b) A guard or other peace officer is justified in the use of force, including force likely to cause death or great bodily harm, which he reasonably believes to be necessary to prevent the escape from a penal institution of a person whom the officer reasonably believes to be lawfully detained in such institution under sentence for an offense or awaiting trial or commitment for an offense.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)

You are expected to be unarmed and "retreat" when attacked.

Please point out the requirement to retreat, I can't find it in the statute.

 

[Deltaboy1984]

Jeff The Law is nice only if you have to bucks to play the game in the courts. Call 911 make sure you cell is set on block your number and get out of dodge.

As for mobs ya'll thugs must be pretty tough down here in Texas we say 1 riot 1 Ranger.

 

[roo_ster]

Only way I'd do anything other than scoot & maybe call 911 is if it was family that was in danger. I have only witnessed a few riot-ish type situations and they give me the willies to the point where I just plain don't like big crowds at all(1).

I won't post what I'd do if it was family, but do be assured it wouldn't involve fluffy bunnies & unicorns.



(1) You know you don't like crowds when you're at the Billy Graham revival and you have already noted the nearest exits... FTR, I do not have an actual phobia, just an appreciation for mob violence.

 

[wyocarp]

I think it's a shame that people are not willing to get involved to help someone. No matter what the cost.

In my neck of the woods, if someone needs help I'm probably going to help them. That's my baseline. In Wyoming, that means that when someone is out of gas while it's below zero, I'm going to stop and help. When a gal was ejected from her vehicle last winter right in front of me after her vehicle rolled, I got out to help in the freezing weather and while cars and trucks were sliding all over the place.

This situation looks bad, but the onlookers need to respond in some way. It might not be with a gun. But to do nothing is more of a crime in my book.

 

[BADUNAME37]

Too bad Dirty Harry didn't happen upon the beating.

 

[roo_ster]

wyocarp:

I hear ya...

My wife & I grew up in different parts of the country, but they had a similar "help your neighbor" ethic. My wife had a propensity for driving off the country road into the ditch. Every time some Texan would drive on by drop his truck into 4WD, and drag her out. Where I was born in small-town Iowa, a vehicle break-down was alleviated by a neighbor stopping to give you a ride to the auto parts storre.

But, gotta take into account all factors, including location. Any riot is almost certainly going to take place in an urban area. Most likely an urban area where YOU are the outsider with limited local knowledge. Who are the good guys? Who are teh bad guys? The only one not a potential threat is the poorguy with his brains smashed out on the street.

I have read some Chicago cop blogs and this sort of thing (less the killing) is the norm about every day for that part of Chicago for about every high school. School lets out, and a gang fight starts up. Cops have been warned off by local policritters not to interfere other than to clean up the mess afterwards. In an environment so corrupt and so downright evil, the honest man stands no chance and will be devoured by either the gangs or the cops.

 

[Mr.Davis]

I'd get a fair amount of distance, perhaps across the street would be ideal, call 911, but use 2-3 warning shots to diffuse the situation and disperse the crowd.

I can't believe how many people are advocating warning shots in a situation like this. First, you have limited ammo, on your person, and second, where the heck are those bullets going to go? This situation happened in Chicago. Whose apartment or rear end are you going to shoot up to "warn off" these criminals?

 

[Deanimator]

I think it's a shame that people are not willing to get involved to help someone. No matter what the cost.

It's obvious that you're from Wyoming. I don't say that as an insult, just an observation, kind of like an Eskimo noting the guy from Detroit who doesn't know how to build an igloo or identify different kinds of snow.

Unless you've LIVED in Chicago, you simply don't understand why you don't want to get involved in such a situation, and why you're not actually "helping".

You don't want anything to do with ANYONE in that kind of situation in Chicago. It's one thing to be willing to accept a "cost" even a great one, but a smart person looks at the return on investment.

Unless you have a preference for one gang over another, I'm not sure what you're accomplishing by getting involved. The players have changed since I lived there, but hypothetically, are you a Latin Kings guy vs. a Vice Lords man, or vice versa? Because that's the choice you're making, probably in UTTER ignorance.

Call 911? Not on MY cell phone. There are people with gang ties in the Chicago City Council. There are people with gang ties in the Chicago Police Department. There are NO good guys in this equation, at BEST the VERY occasional innocent victim. Mostly it's people involved in very lucrative criminal enterprises that employ deadly force the way the MPAA employs copywrite law. You have NO friends in that environment, just an infinity of opportunities for some sort of knife in the back.

You don't know the players. You don't know the rules. You don't even know what game is being played. Just rest assured that the playing field (of indeterminate size and shape) is heavily sown with anti-personnel mines. Meddle in that mess and you might as well be in 1930s China, trying to "help" one Triad gang against another Triad gang and expecting Chiang Kai Shek to "protect" you.

No thanks.

 

[ilbob]

It's obvious that you're from Wyoming. I don't say that as an insult, just an observation, kind of like an Eskimo noting the guy from Detroit who doesn't know how to build an igloo or identify different kinds of snow.

Unless you've LIVED in Chicago, you simply don't understand why you don't want to get involved in such a situation, and why you're not actually "helping".

You don't want anything to do with ANYONE in that kind of situation in Chicago. It's one thing to be willing to accept a "cost" even a great one, but a smart person looks at the return on investment.

Unless you have a preference for one gang over another, I'm not sure what you're accomplishing by getting involved. The players have changed since I lived there, but hypothetically, are you a Latin Kings guy vs. a Vice Lords man, or vice versa? Because that's the choice you're making, probably in UTTER ignorance.

Call 911? Not on MY cell phone. There are people with gang ties in the Chicago City Council. There are people with gang ties in the Chicago Police Department. There are NO good guys in this equation, at BEST the VERY occasional innocent victim. Mostly it's people involved in very lucrative criminal enterprises that employ deadly force the way the MPAA employs copywrite law. You have NO friends in that environment, just an infinity of opportunities for some sort of knife in the back.

You don't know the players. You don't know the rules. You don't even know what game is being played. Just rest assured that the playing field (of indeterminate size and shape) is heavily sown with anti-personnel mines. Meddle in that mess and you might as well be in 1930s China, trying to "help" one Triad gang against another Triad gang and expecting Chiang Kai Shek to "protect" you.

No thanks.

Deanimator knows the score. Much of Chicago is all but owned by gangs. Several alderman are known to be 'former" gang members. Gangs are used to "solicit" political contributions for democratic party candidates.

A few years ago, the police department publicly admitted that several hundred police officers were gang members.

Last summer, a federal raid on an politician's office found copies of hundreds of search warrants. Apparently someone was giving the gang associated politician copies of the search warrants before they were executed.

For reasons that escape me, both the police department dispatches and the news accounts of these kind of incidents generally refer to 'groups" of students as opposed to gangs. Once in a while the word gang sneaks in, but it is rare.

It seems in this case the kid that got killed was an innocent bystander and was not known to be associated with any gang. That is not the norm. Most of the time both the perpetrators and the victims are gang members.

 

[drjoker]

Jeff.....

Jeff White,

I did not mean to spread misinformation. I thought that the red smiley points out to the fact that it was a joke that I posted to point out how corrupt Chicago is. That's why I live in Texas. I may consider living in Alaska or Wyoming, in a small town, but places like Chicago, NYC, or L.A. are the craps. I once went to NYC to see about opening a small business. I spoke with other store owners in the neighborhood and they told me that business is good, but be prepared to dump all your profits into paying "protection fees" so you have to hide your prosperity. No thanks. I used to live in L.A. I lived in BEVERLY HILLS, but my earliest childhood memories include a gun battle between police and a BG in front of my mama's car in the parking lot. On Rodeo Drive (Beverly Hills), one day, a gunman shot a woman for her purse in BROAD DAYLIGHT. Nobody stopped to help her because nobody wanted to get involved and it is impossible to get a carry permit in an urban area in California unless you're politically very well connected. For example, the ONLY carry permit in San Franciso was gun control inc's Senator Feinstein. It is this kind of corruption, lack of liberty, and double standard that has gotten me to leave L.A. and go live in rural small town Texas.

Again, my apologies, Jeff.

0bama is from Chicago... hmmm....

 

[sheepdog]

Jeff White nailed it...

...as a cop, I'd step out and rack one in...fire a shot of buck into the air and say "Next"...that's the job...as a private citizen, that's why I carry a cell phone...one with a handgun against a mob just puts another gun on the streets....

 

[RioShooter]

If I came upon this scene in Chicago, there's not much I could do, except to call 911.

If I witnessed the same event at home, my response would be different. I don't believe I could watch a person being beaten to death without intervening. A major factor for me would be when the event took place.

If I was on my way to or from work, the only weapon I would have is a .38 spl. snubby. If this happened at night or on the week-end, I'd have a 1911 and a snubby on me. In my trunk, I'd either have a 12 ga. pump with 7 rounds loaded, or an SKS (sometimes both).

A lot of "ifs", but there always are. If, I witnessed this when I was fully armed, a shot of buckshot in the air would be my first move. The next would depend on the reaction of the mob.

 

[Backpacker33]

Fatal Chicago Beating

A friend and I were assaulted and nearly beaten to death in Chicago some years ago. I posted an account of what happened, and the reaction of the person who saved our lives, in the THR forum "It happened to me, Carry Stories." Title is "Assaulted in Chicago." It was also before I owned a gun.

I feel like those who said they would not be able to know who was who in the mess shown in that video. I do not see a way to become constructively and safely involved other than call 911 and be a good witness from a distance.

 

[MisterMike]

I'm going to offer some respectful disagreement to ilbob and Deanimator. Though I live in the 'burbs, I've worked in Chicago for 21 years and consider myself a member of the law enforcement community. Yes, corruption remains rampant in Chicago. And, yes, a fight involving a couple dozen young men has gang warfare written all over it. Not always, but it's likely.

But, despite all that, whether or not anyone here believes it, there's a great core of decency in most Chicagoans, regardless of their color, their ethnicity, or their neighborhood. I've never come across a situation precisely like this, but as in any dangerous situation, you need to weigh the possible upside and downside against your sense of right and wrong.

However, I read Deanimator and ilbob as painting the whole city with a pretty broad brush, saying effectively, "It's Chicago . . . just walk away and don't call the cops." I disagree.

 

[ilbob]

Jeff The Law is nice only if you have to bucks to play the game in the courts. Call 911 make sure you cell is set on block your number and get out of dodge.

As for mobs ya'll thugs must be pretty tough down here in Texas we say 1 riot 1 Ranger.

You can't block your number from 911.