So where does this fit? ("Knockout Game")
- Thread starter herrwalther
- Start date
- Status
HeadJunter
Member
What an interesting thread. However, in reading it over, I think it would be useful in the future for us to vet our bona fides when speaking to the legal aspects of threads containing legal subjects. Since attending LFI-I in 1990, I have heard so much legal misinformation, another piece of which I had to correct just last evening while attending a class, that I am always skeptical until someone provides some credentials to back up their commentary.
E.g., the speaker:
We could sticky the credentials cite numbers. Then a common tater could reference the number at the close of their post or put it in their signature line. That would be useful information in deciding which common taters to pay attention to and which to ignore. To wit: 8; 1, 2, 3, 4.
E.g., the speaker:
- Just has an opinion from reading gun magazines and listening to misinformation in gun shops.
- Has an opinion based on legal research, which can be cited.
- Has attended a firearms class with a legal component.
- Is a Certified legal component deadly force instructor.
- Is an attorney.
- Is a criminal defense attorney.
- Is a criminal defense attorney who has successfully represented innocent persons in firearms related matters.
- Is a combination of the above.
We could sticky the credentials cite numbers. Then a common tater could reference the number at the close of their post or put it in their signature line. That would be useful information in deciding which common taters to pay attention to and which to ignore. To wit: 8; 1, 2, 3, 4.
Last edited:
The so called "knockout game" is nothing more than the age old strong arm robbery that's been going on since the beginning of man.
While growing in the inner city as a youngster I was attacked this way twice by a group of thugs and the first blow was always a sucker punch.
I hate it when people try to draw the attention away from serious crime by giving it cutesy fancy names. It's not a game. Strong arm robbery is a felony and has been for ages yet because it's not being committed with a firearm the anti-gun segments of our society work to downplay it's seriousness.
While growing in the inner city as a youngster I was attacked this way twice by a group of thugs and the first blow was always a sucker punch.
I hate it when people try to draw the attention away from serious crime by giving it cutesy fancy names. It's not a game. Strong arm robbery is a felony and has been for ages yet because it's not being committed with a firearm the anti-gun segments of our society work to downplay it's seriousness.
One could also list the states and courts in which an attorney is licensed to practice; the particular CLE courses that one has attended; whether one has prepared appellate briefs, and which ones, and for what purposes; and/or what one has published.
I do not think we are going there.
Recently, after a post that I had submitted on another board had been "stickied" by the staff, someone asked for credentials from me, from the staff member (a practicing attorney) who had responded, and from the licensed attorney who had co-authored the piece. They were provided.
I do not see much value in providing credentials in an Internet post unless one is trying to sell subscriptions, books, or courses. One reason for that is that I have interviewed criminal trial attorneys whose opinions were ill founded.
But the desirability of being able to substantiate a statement is self evident. If someone has questions about the concepts of A,O, J, and P, or ADEE, or about an issue involving a confrontation involving mutual combat or an altercation initiated by the shooter (or wielder of a screwdriver), or anything else, for that matter, one can ask. In most cases, the best response may well be a link to something published.
We will never find an attorney who has actually tried many self defense cases in Arizona, Illinois, Massachusetts, Texas, and Washington State. Our board addresses questions from people everywhere.
In my case, I have attended courses in use of force law, and I have attended many hours of classes that would, for an attorney, count as Continuing Legal Education.
During my lengthy work career, I authored a rather large volume of documents, procedures, reports, letters, and the like that involved legal and regulatory compliance in a number of areas. I am not going to list them on a public forum. All of them were reviewed by, or if appropriate, signed by, attorneys. After a while, the review became largely a formality.
Some of those reviews were requested simply for the sake of caution, and not because they were required.
It was the same mindset that led me some years ago to start consulting attorneys and some of the leading instructors in the country, including your instructor in LFI-1, before posting anything here or on other boards that pertained to legal issues. I'll stand by the results, and so will they.
But we have gone off topic. The knockout game is a very serious subject, and we could use some really thoughtful discussion on how persons can mitigate the risk of victimization. Let's get back to that.
There seem to be some distinct differences, and to my mind, they are important.
First, the objective of robbery is to take property, using the threat of harm to cause the victim to hand it over. The reported objective of the knockout game is to cause harm.
In a robbery, the robber usually announces his intent. In the instances of the knockout game of which I am aware, and two in our area have had serious consequences (one fatality), the attackers have struck by surprise.
It seems to me that that strategy of surprise complicates the defense, bot h in terms of tactics and possible defense of justification.
And so does the practice of using bare hands.
WardenWolf
member
In most states, and probably all of them, it would be grounds to use lethal force to defend yourself against the "knockout game", particularly if it involves multiple people against a single victim. People can and have been killed by such things, and left with lifelong mental and physical impairments. You would be defending yourself against what anyone would reasonably believe to be grievous bodily harm.
How do you defend yourself from a sucker punch? You don't, it's a sucker punch.
Situational awareness is what best prevents this.
I stress that people do not take all advice in this thread to heart. In my state, if you shot and killed one unarmed minor of a group even if they were punching you/trying to knock you out, you would almost be guaranteed murder 2, and would be lucky to get Voluntary manslaughter.
Situational awareness is what best prevents this.
I stress that people do not take all advice in this thread to heart. In my state, if you shot and killed one unarmed minor of a group even if they were punching you/trying to knock you out, you would almost be guaranteed murder 2, and would be lucky to get Voluntary manslaughter.
Well, in all states, if there were multiple attackers against a single victim, there would be grounds to contend that a disparity of force existed. That pertains to ability.
People can be and have been killed by a single punch, but all of the literature of which I am aware states that, if the victim is fit and evenly matched, the threat of an attack by an unarmed assailant, or even overt punching, would not justify the use of deadly force. I would point people to the coverage of that subject in Defending the Self Defense Case by Lisa Steele. It is no longer available on line to people who are not members of the NACDL, but Massad Ayoob distributes copies in MAG-20.
As Marty Hayes has written, Larry Hickey was unable to convince two different juries of that when he was already being beaten senseless by three unarmed adults.
It would seem to me, thinking aloud, that the Knockout Game presents another problem--that the defender will be struck by surprise. How will he present evidence of a reasonable belief of jeopardy? The post from stressed makes that point effectively.
Perhaps the more likely targets--the frail and the elderly--may have something of a level playing field in court, or before it gets that far, if they defend themselves in areas in which the "game has been prevalent. One would hope so.
This is a tough question. The problem is, the precedents go back about a hundred years before Geoffrey Chaucer penned "The Lawyers Tale", and the only things that are new are firearms and the Internet.
Pizzapinochle
member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2013
- Messages
- 570
I think the real risk for someone carrying in this situation is this:
Lets say you are a victim of this "game." Someone runs up, throws one punch trying to knock you out. The "game" is to try and knock out with one punch. Successful or not, after the one punch, the attacker is planning on running.
CCW holder doesn't get knocked out, draws and fires as the youth is turning to run.
How would the jury view the attacker? Are they still the aggressor, or were they fleeing?
If the attacker is running away, they are no longer a threat and lethal force is no longer justified.
But, all of that could happen so quickly that there is very little opportunity for the victim to make that sort of determination.
The randomness of the attack and the fact that the goal of the attack is NOT robbery or even to "beat someone up," it is to throw ONE punch, makes the situation complex. Would definitely be a mess, regardless. And I definitely live in a city where this sort of thing could happen.
Lets say you are a victim of this "game." Someone runs up, throws one punch trying to knock you out. The "game" is to try and knock out with one punch. Successful or not, after the one punch, the attacker is planning on running.
CCW holder doesn't get knocked out, draws and fires as the youth is turning to run.
How would the jury view the attacker? Are they still the aggressor, or were they fleeing?
If the attacker is running away, they are no longer a threat and lethal force is no longer justified.
But, all of that could happen so quickly that there is very little opportunity for the victim to make that sort of determination.
The randomness of the attack and the fact that the goal of the attack is NOT robbery or even to "beat someone up," it is to throw ONE punch, makes the situation complex. Would definitely be a mess, regardless. And I definitely live in a city where this sort of thing could happen.
You can say that again.
Let's see.... You have an unarmed attacker who has been shot. That's a problem.
For purposes of discussion, let's assume we can get past that one, via obvious disparity of force, for example.
You then have some indication (from testimony or forensic evidence, I suppose) that the attacker had turned away.
If the triers of fact were to conclude that the actor knowingly and willfully fired at a fleeing person, the defendant would be in trouble.
In Defending the Self Defense Case, Lisa Steele points out that shots from behind can sometimes be explained by the difference between the reaction time of the shooter and the time it would take someone to turn. An expert witness could explain that.
One other point--what the attacker had been planning to do would be irrelevant, unless the defender had somehow known about it.
Pizzapinochle
member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2013
- Messages
- 570
And, if the attacker was semi-successful, you have a victim who has recently taken a hard hit to the head, meaning decision making, vision, reactions, etc. are all inhibited.
Now there is a question... self-defense after taking a blow to the head?
I have taken concussive hits to the head in sports. I was functional immediately afterward, functional enough to perform a sports action (running, throwing, kicking) that I have strong muscle memory of, but I have NO memory of it and was certainly not making rational decisions.
In a situation like this "knockout game," if someone's self-defense training was sufficiently ingrained, I could see them taking a concussive blow to the head, drawing and firing, with no memory or real ability to make a decision.
Wonder how that would play out in a courtroom.
Now there is a question... self-defense after taking a blow to the head?
I have taken concussive hits to the head in sports. I was functional immediately afterward, functional enough to perform a sports action (running, throwing, kicking) that I have strong muscle memory of, but I have NO memory of it and was certainly not making rational decisions.
In a situation like this "knockout game," if someone's self-defense training was sufficiently ingrained, I could see them taking a concussive blow to the head, drawing and firing, with no memory or real ability to make a decision.
Wonder how that would play out in a courtroom.
That is quite the assumption.
And plenty of real life incidents prove that assumption to be dead wrong.
Well, that would be stupid. Hopefully we all know that.
The way you wrote it they were fleeing.
Correct.
Real life happens fast. You need to be able to avoid shooting an unarmed person in the back as they run away.
Again, plenty of real world examples show that it isn't necessarily "ONE punch".
That could be a deadly-wrong assumption to make.
Mainsail
Member
I think we’re analyzing this wrong. It’s not always black and white, or: I can take the punch *or* I can shoot.
As mentioned previously, if you are in a place you have a right be (public place) and one person is attempting to distract you and you notice another one or more trying to flank you- moving in a deliberate manner towards you- you can certainly brush your cover garment back and grip the handle of your gun. Several people trying to surround me would put me in fear of death or great bodily harm.
Once you’ve shown you can resist with deadly force it is extremely unlikely that they would just keep coming- as in so unlikely as to be statistically irrelevant. If they do keep coming, there are other factors at play, such as mental illness. However, the people playing this game are generally cowards with as much or more sense of self-preservation as you have.
I would immediately call the police and describe the situation and that you almost drew your lawfully carried weapon.
As mentioned previously, if you are in a place you have a right be (public place) and one person is attempting to distract you and you notice another one or more trying to flank you- moving in a deliberate manner towards you- you can certainly brush your cover garment back and grip the handle of your gun. Several people trying to surround me would put me in fear of death or great bodily harm.
Once you’ve shown you can resist with deadly force it is extremely unlikely that they would just keep coming- as in so unlikely as to be statistically irrelevant. If they do keep coming, there are other factors at play, such as mental illness. However, the people playing this game are generally cowards with as much or more sense of self-preservation as you have.
I would immediately call the police and describe the situation and that you almost drew your lawfully carried weapon.
Mainsail
Member
That’s one version of the game, but how are you to know which version they’re playing? How do you know they’ll follow the rules? Sometimes one person knocks the victim down and the rest join in and beat the person while he or she (yes, shes too) are down. I don’t want to spend the rest of my life, if I survive, being fed through a tube.
Pizzapinochle
member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2013
- Messages
- 570
Warp,
I maybe should have made something clear, I posted right after reading jbrown's post:
However, I don't think the knockout game is a robbery. From descriptions, the goal is not to knock you down/out then take something, it is just to see if they can knock you out for the heck of it.
In a robbery, you may get sucker punched, but then the attacker is coming back to relieve you of your possessions. The continued threat from the attacker justifies self defense.
In this "game," you could receive a very similar sucker punch, but the attacker would NOT have the intention of robbing you and would instead be hastily exiting the area.
I am not saying to make any assumptions or to take any particular course of action. Just pointing out that the same action (distraction followed by a sucker punch) can have very different goals in mind from the attacker.
How does the potential for one (a one punch "game") that would put you in tenuous legal position if you were to draw and fire impact how you would react to the situation?
That is exactly the point. Any assumption you make could turn out very badly.
If you assume it is an assault/robbery situation, you could end up shooting in that split second window that results in a shot in the back and a bad time with a jury.
If you assume it is a one punch "game," you could end up giving the attacker time to attack again.
So, as this is strategy and tactics, how do you balance the two?
Do you try to distinguish between the two, or do you assume the attacker intends further harm?
If you decide to try and distinguish, what methods do you use to make the determination?
I maybe should have made something clear, I posted right after reading jbrown's post:
However, I don't think the knockout game is a robbery. From descriptions, the goal is not to knock you down/out then take something, it is just to see if they can knock you out for the heck of it.
In a robbery, you may get sucker punched, but then the attacker is coming back to relieve you of your possessions. The continued threat from the attacker justifies self defense.
In this "game," you could receive a very similar sucker punch, but the attacker would NOT have the intention of robbing you and would instead be hastily exiting the area.
I am not saying to make any assumptions or to take any particular course of action. Just pointing out that the same action (distraction followed by a sucker punch) can have very different goals in mind from the attacker.
How does the potential for one (a one punch "game") that would put you in tenuous legal position if you were to draw and fire impact how you would react to the situation?
That is exactly the point. Any assumption you make could turn out very badly.
If you assume it is an assault/robbery situation, you could end up shooting in that split second window that results in a shot in the back and a bad time with a jury.
If you assume it is a one punch "game," you could end up giving the attacker time to attack again.
So, as this is strategy and tactics, how do you balance the two?
Do you try to distinguish between the two, or do you assume the attacker intends further harm?
If you decide to try and distinguish, what methods do you use to make the determination?
If you reasonably fear imminent serious bodily harm or death (or whatever specific requirement your current location stipulates as necessary for lethal force justification), and you believe lethal force gives you the best chances, you use lethal force.
If you were previously in reasonable fear of same, but they broke of their attack in the 1.5-2.5 seconds most people are going to take to draw and be ready to fire, then you probably shouldn't be shooting them...just be ready in case they turn back towards you.
PistolPete45
Member
Knock out is first off stupid the repercussions for sucker punching an unknown target might get someone badly hurt .. some punk hits my buddy and what will I do.. well not shoot him unless it is needed .. but I might just pistol whip him >> Kick him to sleep and dial 911
If lethal force is not necessary and justified, you shouldn't have a pistol in your hand.
If you "kick somebody to sleep", well, some other person might show up and draw their gun on you. If you are "kicking him to sleep" with a gun in your hand, that other person might just shoot you. And they might just be justified in doing so.
That (no duty to retreat, and lawfully showing the firearm when non deadly physical force would be justified) applies in your juridisdicion and some others, but not in mine.
Unfortunately.
That sounds reasonable.
In one of the publicized incidents in our area in which a person was severely injured, the mayor of the city came upon the injured man.
Afterward, he urged people to call the police if they saw suspicious looking groups. He opposes the carrying of guns by people other than sworn officers.
The right to show a firearm in a situation that does not yet meet the threshold for deadly force would, I think, be a great help in situations of the kind we have been discussing.
However, there are an amazing number of people in the area who oppose both the carrying of forearms and any "stand your ground" provision.
Fred Fuller
Moderator Emeritus
There's been a good bit of media attention lately -
http://newsone.com/2767634/knockout-game-new-jersey/
What Is The ‘Knockout’ Game?
Comments: 119 | Leave A Comment
Nov 11, 2013 By NewsOne Staff
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/11/17/teens-knockout-game-growing-danger-with-deadly-results/
Teens' 'Knockout Game' a growing danger with deadly results
Published November 17, 2013
FoxNews.com
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013...-targeting-strangers-may-be-spreading-to-d-c/
Potentially Fatal ‘Knockout’ Game Targeting Strangers May Be Spreading
by Chris Lingebach
November 16, 2013 10:40 AM
http://nypost.com/2013/11/19/thugs-target-jews-in-sick-knockout-game/
Thugs target Jews in sick ‘knockout’ game
By Thomas Sowell
November 19, 2013 | 5:36am
And so on.
Perhaps more media attention will make the public and law enforcement more aware of the threat. Meanwhile situational awareness and avoidance is still the best likely approach, and any defensive options are (from a legal standpoint) likely best if limited to less lethal approaches.
ETA - a recently posted video : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uM7IGvVcJuQ#t=132
From a Lansing, MI news channel, interview with a teen who was shot after trying to stun a chosen victim with a stun gun.
http://newsone.com/2767634/knockout-game-new-jersey/
What Is The ‘Knockout’ Game?
Comments: 119 | Leave A Comment
Nov 11, 2013 By NewsOne Staff
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/11/17/teens-knockout-game-growing-danger-with-deadly-results/
Teens' 'Knockout Game' a growing danger with deadly results
Published November 17, 2013
FoxNews.com
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013...-targeting-strangers-may-be-spreading-to-d-c/
Potentially Fatal ‘Knockout’ Game Targeting Strangers May Be Spreading
by Chris Lingebach
November 16, 2013 10:40 AM
http://nypost.com/2013/11/19/thugs-target-jews-in-sick-knockout-game/
Thugs target Jews in sick ‘knockout’ game
By Thomas Sowell
November 19, 2013 | 5:36am
And so on.
Perhaps more media attention will make the public and law enforcement more aware of the threat. Meanwhile situational awareness and avoidance is still the best likely approach, and any defensive options are (from a legal standpoint) likely best if limited to less lethal approaches.
ETA - a recently posted video : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uM7IGvVcJuQ#t=132
From a Lansing, MI news channel, interview with a teen who was shot after trying to stun a chosen victim with a stun gun.
Hoppes Love Potion
Member
From what I have seen, these attacks are racially motivated hate crimes. The willing accomplices are the liberal media in these cities who refuse to report these stories, or who deny any racial connection if they do report.
Mike1234567
member
Skating on thin ice...
Speaking of.
http://www.ijreview.com/2013/11/96462-teen-thought-knockout-innocent-victim-got-shot/
summary;
Knockout thug got shot twice by a 40 cal.
Bad guy was sentenced to a year in prison.
Gun owner was considered justified.
http://www.ijreview.com/2013/11/96462-teen-thought-knockout-innocent-victim-got-shot/
summary;
Knockout thug got shot twice by a 40 cal.
Bad guy was sentenced to a year in prison.
Gun owner was considered justified.
Situational awarness is great. IF you are in an area where an attack like this is probable keep one thing in mind: predators don't like other predators.
When on foot in an area like this don't walk with that uppity yuppy confidence (victim behavior).
Keep your head slightly down and ALWAYS make eye contact and ALWAYS verbalize some sort of acknowledgement (predatory behavior, think dog or wolf).
Walk fast like you are approaching with a sort of ill intent or have something to do (predatory). Be quick and decisive no slow pondering doof movements (victim behavior). Like you see a group of suspected shady characters up ahead and decide to cross the street, they know why you crossed the street only furthering the victim mentality. It screams I'm afraid.
I'm know many will disagree with all this stating their own happenings. I'm sure it works great for them, but living near one of the worst cities in the USA (Cleveland) and being on foot in the absolute worse neighborhoods there and having several run ins with undesirables, I find this behavior works the best.
Ultimately: AVOID IF POSSIBLE!
When on foot in an area like this don't walk with that uppity yuppy confidence (victim behavior).
Keep your head slightly down and ALWAYS make eye contact and ALWAYS verbalize some sort of acknowledgement (predatory behavior, think dog or wolf).
Walk fast like you are approaching with a sort of ill intent or have something to do (predatory). Be quick and decisive no slow pondering doof movements (victim behavior). Like you see a group of suspected shady characters up ahead and decide to cross the street, they know why you crossed the street only furthering the victim mentality. It screams I'm afraid.
I'm know many will disagree with all this stating their own happenings. I'm sure it works great for them, but living near one of the worst cities in the USA (Cleveland) and being on foot in the absolute worse neighborhoods there and having several run ins with undesirables, I find this behavior works the best.
Ultimately: AVOID IF POSSIBLE!
That final line is why I would still cross the street.
What you are saying makes perfect sense and I don't recall anybody saying it quite like that before.
Always verbalize? Plenty of people say acknowledge their presence, with the really quick eye contact or a glance in their direction/real quick scan, head nod, whatever, but I don't know if I've read somebody recommend always verbalize before.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked