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.Posted by HeadJunter: .... 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....E.g., the speaker:....
There seem to be some distinct differences, and to my mind, they are important.Posted by jbrown50: 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.
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.Posted by WardenWolf: 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 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.People can and have been killed by such things, and left with lifelong mental and physical impairments.
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.You would be defending yourself against what anyone would reasonably believe to be grievous bodily harm.
You can say that again.Posted by Pizzapinochle: Would definitely be a mess, regardless.
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.
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.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.
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.
Again, plenty of real world examples show that it isn't necessarily "ONE punch".
That could be a deadly-wrong assumption to make.
So, as this is strategy and tactics, how do you balance the two?
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
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.Posted by Mainsail: 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.
That sounds reasonable.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.
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.I would immediately call the police and describe the situation and that you almost drew your lawfully carried weapon.
This Teen Thought He Could Knockout an Innocent Victim. Then He Learned About the 2nd Amendment.
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!