Legitimate use of deadly force or not?

[Jeff White]

An incident recently happened in St Charles, MO that is fairly well documented. Teenage son gets into it with other teenagers in a park, texts his parents to come save him and mom and dad arrive, a 17 year old threatens mom, who pulls her gun on him.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...oys-allegedly-threatened-15-year-old-son.html

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_712f1e3e-a949-5024-bd78-4eced003d289.html

The video has been pulled from YouTube but the one in the Daily Mail article still works.

 

[Old Dog]

So many things wrong with that whole confrontation.

As a parent, I've intervened in a couple bad situations my kids got into, but I went to the parents of the other children, realizing that diplomacy rarely works with bullies.

Adults should never get involved in stupid arguments with teenagers (who aren't their own children).

Go pick up your child, extract him or her out of the area, don't stay and bicker with 15-year-olds about who is at fault in teen confrontations.

Alternatively, don't show up and let whatever's about to happen play out. I took more than one beating at the hands of multiple bullies during my high-school years and none of those confrontations escalated into lethal force encounters (granted, weapons were rarely displayed back in that kindler, gentler age, and fists were the weapons of choice -- even kicking was considered un-manly then).

I did not see in the video any threat justifying displaying the need to display a firearm. Even had a deadly threat been apparent, the woman's gun-handling, verbals and tactics were abysmal.

 

[Jeff White]

This is typical of most of the "neighborhood trouble" calls I used to have to answer. Fortunately it hasn't escalated to the pint where someone is seriously injured or dead...yet......

 

[Telekinesis]

After that video I'd have to say that she wouldn't have been justified in using lethal force. She seemed to draw to accentuate her point rather than in response to a specific threatening action.

It was poor decision making all around. She should have gotten her kid and left. If they had attacked her while she was trying to leave, then lethal force might have been justified because of the disparity of force (multiple young men - even if they are 17 - attacking a single woman), but I'm not sure how a disparity of force argument would take into account that she was there with her baseball bat weilding husband.

Those kids are idiots though. If someone is pointing a gun at you, it's stupid to antagonize them, advance on them, and have your hands grabbing around your waist (think I saw one adjusting his pants).

From a purely tactical view, she handled the situation very poorly. When they started positioning themselves around her on 3 sides, she should have started moving. At one point she even let one of them get behind her. Probablytunnel vision.

The momma bear is strong in that one. Hope it doesn't get her locked up or killed.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

Yes kids can be stupid sometimes. I get it. I was a kid once.

However, we don't expect adults to act just as stupidly as the kids, as this one did.

As above posters said, she should have gotten her son and left. If he was threatened with bodily harm she should have reported it to the police.
My office shares a lobby with the juvenile probation office. There are kids and teenagers going in and out all the time because they acted stupid and got in trouble.

I would think she would be very lucky if she isn't hit with a charge for brandishing a firearm or aggravated assault. (Yes, I see people charged with aggravated assault all the time for pointing a firearm at someone. Of course the way Arkansas' law is written it allows for that. I don't know how Missouri's criminal code addresses that specific situation)

 

[mgkdrgn]

IF you have time to "send a text", you have time to leave.

 

[DaisyCutter]

As a detective, I'd write up the case, and recommend charges to the County Attorney. The County Attorney would then most likely have me present the case before the grand jury, and the jury would decide whether to indict the parent (in this case) with a true bill.

People can argue all day online, but the above is what actually occurs.

Grand jury's tend to have a fairly low threshold. I heard a prosecutor once say that the typical grand jury will indict a ham sandwich. Note, an indictment doesn't equate "guilty", only that the case meets the criteria (elements of the crime) to be tried.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Foolish woman. Ignoring the poor decision to become involved, she could very easily have had the weapon taken away and used against her.

 

[M-Cameron]

Foolish woman. Ignoring the poor decision to become involved, she could very easily have had the weapon taken away and used against her.

I'm pretty sure that is the same argument people use to justify their reasons not to have an armed public.

 

[gamestalker]

I raised 5 boys and a daughter, and let me tell you, there were plenty of those type's of confrontation my kids got wrapped up in. Regardless of the choice words they throw at one another, they are youngsters with raging hormones and a reputation they think they need to maintain. Unless one of them advanced on me or my child with a potential deadly weapon, thus showing clear intent to do great bodily harm, there's no way I would have even let my weapon become visible or known, much less brandished or threatened anyone with it. Plain and simple, she had a choice to just get her kid, then remove their selves from the situation.

As for this adult, she needs to be charged. This is a perfect example of someone who shouldn't be legal to carry. At the very least, I feel she should get nailed with brandishing or endangerment. Good grief, adults are supposed to do something to deescalate a situation, which could have been accomplished by removing her kid and herself from the situation.

GS

 

[rondog]

Oh my. Troubles be a-comin' her way fer sure.....

 

[MachIVshooter]

I'm pretty sure that is the same argument people use to justify their reasons not to have an armed public.

Don't patronize me. You know exactly what I'm talking about. She had very poor control of the weapon, and no regard for orientation and proximity of threats. Anyone with half a wit about them could have snatched that pistol out of her hands and clocked her with it before she realized what was happening.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

An incident recently happened in St Charles, MO that is fairly well documented. Teenage son gets into it with other teenagers in a park, texts his parents to come save him and mom and dad arrive, a 17 year old threatens mom, who pulls her gun on him.

If I get such a call from my 17 year old son involving teenagers in a similar scenario, I'm on the phone with the police while on my way over.

I have absolutely NO interest in a gang of teens beating any child of mine and no interest in risking additional lives or injury to boot. Teens that age, especially acting in such a fashion, are a serious force to be recconed with and should never be approached with a "they're just kids" attitude.

 

[GRIZ22]

Kid should have called the police if he thought he was being threatened. Momma failed in not calling police when son called second fail. Momma should have told son to get in car and leave. Maybe stay in area if she had called police to id kids. So thats three fails before she even pulls gun out and points it at them. This is called taking the law into your own hands which will eventually, if not immediately, will backfire.

I don't know how the state law works in MO but if I were an LEO witnessing that encounter she would have went to jail.

 

[Jim K]

"Legitimate"? I don't know of any law that specifically says what is "legitimate" use of any force except in a general way. That is determined after the fact by a trial court, in which someone has been charged with a crime involving deadly force. Self defense, defense of others, etc., are affirmative defenses against the charge. Unless an arrest is made and charges filed, there is no determination.

In short, whether the use of force was legitimate will be determined by a judge or jury, not by me.

Jim

 

[xxjumbojimboxx]

I think another reasonable question here, is do the kids have the legal right to protect themselves in that situation? I mean, the only evidence we have is this video, where we see a mother screaming at some punk kids and drawing a gun. Escalating a potential assualt situation to a deadly force situation.

 

[strambo]

If you have to ask yourself whether deadly force is justified...the answer is always no.

When it is justified, it is obvious (if it isn't see above).

 

[Kleanbore]

If you have to ask yourself whether deadly force is justified...the answer is always no.

I think that's a pretty good rule of thumb, but some may not know to ask.

Same thing goes for pulling a gun.