So where does this fit? ("Knockout Game")

[Kleanbore]

Infidel, both of these statements are extremely irresponsible. They do not constitute good advice.

Put down your latte, step out of your insulated little academic/theoretical cocoon, walk into the real world and start a fight with the first street thug you see.

Guys like me, on the other hand, will continue to carry our guns. And if we’re someday confronted by an unarmed scumbag who looks like he could beat us to death... we’re going to draw, aim, and engage as necessary.

There are numerous links available to us here that explain what most experts consider justification for the use of deadly force. Being confronted by someone, particularly an unarmed someone, who "looks" like he "could" beat one to death does not fall into that category. I'm not sure I would accept any advice from that author.

Deadly force can be justified under certain circumstances in the event of a serious attack by someone who is unarmed. Usually, the reason has to do with a disparity of force. You can learn a lot about what that means from reputable instructors, but remember that the ultimate determination would be made by others about what was reasonable.

The knockout game is a serious business. I think that conw's input here makes a lot of sense.

 

[Potatohead]

pointing smart phones at someone might well be one indication that one is being targeted

No doubt. If you see you're being taped, be ready.

 

[Potatohead]

I am the opposite. I am glad that this "game" is getting lots of press. Press is partly the reason I posted it here, to raise awareness to what the youth of (mostly) inner city is doing for fun. The faster these punks learn this is not a game but assault that can lead to consequences, like getting shot or prosecuted, maybe they might not consider it all that fun after all.

Yea, I don't disagree, I see that side too. I guess I wish the copycatters wouldn't see or hear about it anywhere...
the guys doing it could see it and know they can get prosecuted or hurt....
and that the "normal" folks see it so they will be prepared..
In a perfect world.

 

[tactikel]

IMO situational awareness is paramount. Non lethal weapons (legal in your community) are of greater value. A tactical cane is legal everywhere, even airports, and can put an attacker down in seconds. I carry legal mace and a fixed blade knife of max legal length in addition to my cane. An attacker who sees I'm armed and aware of him is likely to move on.
Shooting an unarmed youth (even to save yourself from great bodily harm) could turn you into the next George Zimmerman.

 

[Infidel4life11]

Infidel, both of these statements are extremely irresponsible. They do not constitute good advice.





There are numerous links available to us here that explain what most experts consider justification for the use of deadly force. Being confronted by someone, particularly an unarmed someone, who "looks" like he "could" beat one to death does not fall into that category. I'm not sure I would accept any advice from that author.

Deadly force can be justified under certain circumstances in the event of a serious attack by someone who is unarmed. Usually, the reason has to do with a disparity of force. You can learn a lot about what that means from reputable instructors, but remember that the ultimate determination would be made by others about what was reasonable.

The knockout game is a serious business. I think that conw's input here makes a lot of sense.

Kleanbore, hes not stating the fact that you should go and do that. He is simply making the point of (getting knocked out can cause death). The internet is full of SD "advice" from people who have never been aggressed (main point of the article). I for one have always said use caution while carrying, when dealing with unarmed attacker (post #77 this thread.)

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Infidel4life11: He is simply making the point of (getting knocked out can cause death)

Which is a well known fact that is not worth posting and that rarely justifies the use of deadly force.

He then suggests countering the threat of a punch with a firearm.

As I said, that is very irresponsible indeed.

I had seen that article , but I had concluded that it was not THR material.

 

[Infidel4life11]

Which is a well known fact that is not worth posting and that rarely justifies the use of deadly force.

He then suggests countering the threat of a punch with a firearm.

As I said, that is very irresponsible indeed.

I had seen that article , but I had concluded that it was not THR material.

Gotcha

 

[ChaoSS]

Kleanbore, I think the Zimmerman case may conflict with what you are saying.

Most of that case hinged around whether he had initiated conflict, whether he had done so because of the racial issue, whether the facts of the matter were indeed the facts of the matter, but I didn't see much argument that if he was indeed the one on the bottom, getting beat, with no weapon involved (other than the ground, which, incidentally is everywhere) and he didn't initiate violence or stalk Martin, that he would have been guilty of a crime. Seems that if the facts that he claims were right, there wasn't really a case against him.

 

[Kleanbore]

ChaoSS, if you look into the facts, it was not a punch, but the smashing of the defender's head against the concrete that created the imminent threat.

 

[Warp]

Kleanbore, I think the Zimmerman case may conflict with what you are saying.

Most of that case hinged around whether he had initiated conflict, whether he had done so because of the racial issue, whether the facts of the matter were indeed the facts of the matter, but I didn't see much argument that if he was indeed the one on the bottom, getting beat, with no weapon involved (other than the ground, which, incidentally is everywhere) and he didn't initiate violence or stalk Martin, that he would have been guilty of a crime. Seems that if the facts that he claims were right, there wasn't really a case against him.

A lot of people argued that even if Martin started the whole thing and was 100% at fault for the situation, Zimmerman was, in their mind, still completely in the wrong to use a firearm.

I talked to LOTS of those people over the course of, well, ever since the incident. And especially during the trial.

 

[herrwalther]

Yea, I don't disagree, I see that side too. I guess I wish the copycatters wouldn't see or hear about it anywhere...
the guys doing it could see it and know they can get prosecuted or hurt....
and that the "normal" folks see it so they will be prepared..
In a perfect world.

I defiantly see that side. But here is why I think "ours" is stronger. The 2A is a very strong and relatively close knit group. I can name several other forums similar to this one that talk about firearms, tactics etc. OUR network is bigger than "wannabe punks who try to act tough and hit people for no reason" network. I shared this video and story with every person I thought I could reach to open a discussion. I don't think the kids who think this game is fun share the story of other "players" getting shot all too often. Sure it plays on the news but they won't send it to their friends.

pointing smart phones at someone might well be one indication that one is being targeted

If I am being filmed from a notorious looking individual or group I would be suspicious, but not for this game of assault. I don't see any of the assaulters or accomplices in any of the attacks taping what happens. Everything in the report is put together from security footage. I would say the two big warning signs are large groups of (as far as we can tell) black teenagers. The second warning sign is few witness. It looks like in the attacks that are done with one attacker are done late at night or early morning times with less foot traffic. Guess the attackers don't like an audience unless they are an accomplice.

 

[conw]

That seems extremely reasonable to me.

Just a thought: Based on what I have seen and heard, it would seem that indications that people are pointing smart phones at someone might well be one indication that one is being targeted.

That's a good point I hadn't thought of.

One thing I haven't heard discussed a lot, but have heard from people I trust, is that in a defensive encounter picking up on details like that and later being able to articulate the specific reasons you chose your course of action, could be key to a successful self defense case.

I know you know that KB but I thought the hint you gave was a particularly good possible example.

 

[tepin]

^^ If you cannot prove you had specific knowledge prior to the event it will not be allowed in court.... which is why, when you take Ayoob's MAG20/40 class, he'll state that you need to start preparing your defense TODAY and not when you are waiting for bail. To do so, you document all the classes you have taken (by note taking because you could have slept through class), document the books you have read (folks dont usually buy books w/o reading them but a book report would be helpful), print out court cases relevant to self-defense:
1. Disparity of force cases
2. Knock-out game cases where the victim dies, has brain damage or spends time in coma
3. Cases where the perp claims "Money or your life" and kills the compliant victim anyway
4. The stranger an more obscure cases are better. Every juror can see where a knife or gun presents "ability" but maybe the shod foot or fist not so much.

Print news articles that highlight violent crime in your area and read up on and document signs that are precursors to violence i.e. body language. Also, find information on gang symbols, specifically tattoos. If you ever have to shoot an unarmed man, it might be helpful to articulate in court that you recognized the "243" tattooed on your attackers wrist as a gang symbol consistent with someone who has committed battery on a police officer and the dagger on his neck as someone available for hire to kill other prisoners.

The "reasonable person" standard includes that reasonable person that also knew what you knew at the time of the attack... but you have to prove it through documentation.

Package all this documentation up and mail it (the box / packet) to yourself USPS certified and registered. If your knowledge and training is ever needed in court, this packet should be opened "in the well of the court" so that all can see that the package was postmarked prior to the event. As you take more training refresh your packet periodically.

 

[Kleanbore]

^^^^

Good input.

 

[Kayo]

The sad part is we live in a society where sane men need to discuss this to protect themselves in case they need to protect themselves. Good food for thought in this thread.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Kayo: The sad part is we live in a society where sane men need to discuss this to protect themselves in case they need to protect themselves.

But that's nothing new. It dates back to ancient times. Of course, the motives of the ruffians were generally a lot different.

Good food for thought in this thread.

Yes indeed.

 

[Averageman]

Situational Awareness is the best defense.
If you leave the Mall after Christmas Shopping and see something you dont like in the parking lot, why put yourself in the situation.
Call security and get an escort, the Mall would much rather do that than handle an incident.
I think a lot of people if aware have an "It can't happen to me" attitude and it makes them a victim before they are aware of what is happening. They walk right in to a bad situation and it becomes worse, because the bad situation and event about to happen are totally controlled by the bad guy.
Clearly if it doesn't look "right" treat it as if it is a danger and avoid it.
Situational Awareness is an often overlooked and neglected tool that is available to all of us.

 

[besafe2]

Situational Awareness is the best defense.
If you leave the Mall after Christmas Shopping and see something you dont like in the parking lot, why put yourself in the situation.
Call security and get an escort, the Mall would much rather do that than handle an incident.
I think a lot of people if aware have an "It can't happen to me" attitude and it makes them a victim before they are aware of what is happening. They walk right in to a bad situation and it becomes worse, because the bad situation and event about to happen are totally controlled by the bad guy.
Clearly if it doesn't look "right" treat it as if it is a danger and avoid it.
Situational Awareness is an often overlooked and neglected tool that is available to all of us.

This post really covers it all.

 

[On An Island]

Unfortunately, Texas isn't immune to this:

KTRH Story, posted November 25th, 2013.

and the "game" appears to have mutated.

 

[Mike1234567]

There is no immunity from impunity.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Kinda late entering this, but here goes:

The "Knockout Game" has always been around in one form or another. An older name for this might be "Sucker Punch".

Due to the nature of this particular type of attack, the best weapon against this is NOT the gun, or any other physical weapon. It's situational awareness.

Sucker punches come out of the blue, by definition. They are a surprise attack, deliberately staged and carried out as such. Even good situational awareness may not prevent them, though it would go a long way towards preventing them since it's inherently more difficult to conduct a surprise attack on an alert target.

What this means is that unless you have adequate (and legally recognized) warning of such an impending attack beforehand, you'll likely never have time to even think about reaching for your weapon, much less draw, aim, and shoot. The attack is over in an instant an you're on the ground, possibly unconscious or otherwise physically disabled, and very likely mentally dazed and confused at the least.

Because these attacks are planned the way they are, there are typically no signs signaling the attack beforehand. No taunting, no posturing, no gathering of a gang, no foot race, etc. Draw your weapon before any reasonable display of a threat and YOU become the aggressor.


Kleanbore's advice in post #30 is where it's at.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=9205289&postcount=30


NOTE:

Boy, I wish I had actually did more than skim all the pages leading up to my posting. Pretty much all covered in detail before.

 

[herrwalther]

Unfortunately, Texas isn't immune to this:

KTRH Story, posted November 25th, 2013.

and the "game" appears to have mutated.

Articles like that tick me off about these ASSAULTS. It almost sounds like Reverand Gilmore in that article is defending these miscreants by calling it "someone innocently knocks you out." That must have been a lesson I missed in school somewhere. Or a Thursday afternoon I don't remember where the teacher would say "hey if you are bored, just try to knock someone out with one hit. Its innocent and fun!" I don't see anything innocent about it. I don't know. I guess it is mostly because in cases where I imagine using a concealed weapon to defend myself it is for a reason. Such as I am being targeted for a robbery or someone doesn't like how I drive. This "assaulting for fun" just gives me something new to be paranoid about.

 

[Mike1234567]

Let's face it. The folks playing this "game" are extremely misguided and mentally ill.

 

[larryh1108]

The folks playing this "game" are extremely misguided and mentally ill.

es on youu
Misguided? Yep.
Mentally ill? I doubt it. They know what they are doing.

They are thugs and punks who live to prey on other people. They've been around since man has been around. Today they do it for kicks or to see themselves on youtube or facebook. They are so stupid that their fame gets them arrested.

 

[Mike1234567]

Psychopathy is a form of mental illness... the absolute worst form. These goons are psychopaths.