The Richmond Beat-down, How Would You Handle This Situation?

[RollTide In Texas]

I'm constantly running different scenario's through my head since I'm new to CC. I've been following this discussion about the recent Richmond beat-down on another forum. Many different types of responses, and it has even become quite heated at times in the discussion on how to handle this. Many people responding based on their states laws. This was a premeditated attack with the whole purpose to post it on youtube.

I would like your thoughts on this, say if this had taken place in Texas, and the victim was CHL and carrying at the time. First off, you never put yourself in this type of position, 1:00AM in a bad area, that's a given. This guy knows what's about to happen, but there is no clear verbal threat as to whats about to happen, and no weapons evident. Would he have been justified to use his weapon? He doesn't know if it's one guy going to attack him, or the whole bunch. What would you do based on your knowledge of Texas CHL laws?

Sorry, can't seem to embed the youtube video for some reason. Here's the link:

MODERATORS NOTE: Extreme profanity and grapic violence in video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBzCKGp3UNU" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[HotLeadSolutions]

First let's look at this section:

PC §9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force
is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes
of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by
the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose
is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly
force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

I believe in this instance that the production of a weapon (and verbal commands) is necessary. As long as the reason for the production of a weapon is to let the others know "I fear for my life...I will use deadly force!" Again at this point VERBAL COMMANDS are essential. STOP! DO NOT COME CLOSER! I WILL SHOOT YOU!

Now onto:
PC §9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A
person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other
under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use
of unlawful deadly force

If YOU were in this situation...would YOU reasonably believe that you needed to use force/deadly force to stop what was about to happen? I dont know what just ran through your mind as an answer but I clearly thought "YES"

I would hope that the production of the weapon and firm verbal commands would have stopped this action, but I am afraid I would have been in the middle of a mag reload by the middle of this video.

[nyj]

That's always a tough one. Trying to prevent it from getting to the point where you're on the ground getting your head kicked -- that seems where it would be mostly justifiable, but would you be able to draw your firearm at that point?

[BrianSW99]

I agree with HotLead, that producing the weapon and giving a verbal command would be justified in this case. If they continue to come closer even after you've drawn the gun, then I personally think you'd then have the justification to use it. Particularly with the disparity of force of several people on one guy. You don't have to wait until you're getting your head kicked in to use your weapon.

Brian

[nyj]

I agree with HotLead, that producing the weapon and giving a verbal command would be justified in this case. If they continue to come closer even after you've drawn the gun, then I personally think you'd then have the justification to use it. Particularly with the disparity of force of several people on one guy. You don't have to wait until you're getting your head kicked in to use your weapon.

Brian

Killing 3 people because you *think* they're going to commit grave harm to you will really test the saying "I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by 6."

[cbr600]

Being killed by 3 criminals will pretty much ensure you're "carried by six" unless, of course, your body isn't found/identified.

[BrianSW99]

If 3-4 guys starts coming at me in the middle of the night, even after trying to get away, I'm going to be in fear of bodily harm. At that point, I think I would be justified in drawing a weapon according to PC9.04.

If after drawing the weapon and giving a verbal command they are still approaching, I have to assume they mean to do me serious harm. Most people would stop if they see a gun pointed at them. They know I have a gun, and I can't let them get close enough to me to take that gun away from me. I would be in fear of my life at this point, and I think would be justified in using deadly force.

I'm not sure if this is how I would have handled the situation myself, but it's one possibility that I think would be legally justified in shooting. It's hard to say what you'll do until you get there.

One punch can be fatal. You don't have to get beat up before you can do something about it.

[Texas Dan Mosby]

My deadly force ROE. Take it for what it's worth...

Intent + ability + immediacy = deadly force

In that situation I would have come to the conclusion that those 3....."gentlemen", intended to cause me great bodily harm and/or death.
- Hostile manner of speaking
- Aggressive positioning in order to isolate my movement

Intent = condition met to use deadly force.

I would also believe that they had the ability to cause great bodily harm and/or death.
- Disparity of force existed as there were multiple individuals

Ability = condition met to use deadly force.

I do not believe that there was an immediate need for deadly force, due to the initial distance factor of the threats when they first exhibited their hostile behavior, and the chance that the threats may have stopped if a firearm was produced and a warning issued. However, as soon as the threats ignored the warning and continued to close the distance, I believe there was an immediate need to use deadly force to stop their threat.

Immediacy = condition initially unmet due to distance / early hostile behavioral cues, condition met upon refusal to comply with warning

Action taken to stop threat: Draw, warn, and engage should they fail to heed the warning.

Based on their display of hostile intent, and the fact they had the ability to carry out the same, I would have drawn my firearm and issued a warning in an attempt to stop their threat, and should they fail to comply, I would use deadly force to stop the attacker/s, and immediately stop when there is no longer a threat. Odds are good that as soon as the closest attacker gets shot, the rest will cease to be a threat.....or they'll pull out their firearms. Regardless, I would immediately call and report the incident afterward, whether or not I actually used deadly force.

This video is a good example of why situational awareness and decisiveness are critical to ones health and well being. IMO, the threats clearly displayed hostile intent early enough to justify drawing a firearm for defense without firing. However, that window of opportunity was brief, and when it was closed, deadly force would indeed be justified to defend yourself.

My .02c...............

[HotLeadSolutions]

My deadly force ROE. Take it for what it's worth...

Intent + ability + immediacy = deadly force

In that situation I would have come to the conclusion that those 3....."gentlemen", intended to cause me great bodily harm and/or death.
- Hostile manner of speaking
- Aggressive positioning in order to isolate my movement

Intent = condition met to use deadly force.

I would also believe that they had the ability to cause great bodily harm and/or death.
- Disparity of force existed as there were multiple individuals

Ability = condition met to use deadly force.

I do not believe that there was an immediate need for deadly force, due to the initial distance factor of the threats when they first exhibited their hostile behavior, and the chance that the threats may have stopped if a firearm was produced and a warning issued. However, as soon as the threats ignored the warning and continued to close the distance, I believe there was an immediate need to use deadly force to stop their threat.

Immediacy = condition initially unmet due to distance / early hostile behavioral cues, condition met upon refusal to comply with warning

Action taken to stop threat: Draw, warn, and engage should they fail to heed the warning.

Based on their display of hostile intent, and the fact they had the ability to carry out the same, I would have drawn my firearm and issued a warning in an attempt to stop their threat, and should they fail to comply, I would use deadly force to stop the attacker/s, and immediately stop when there is no longer a threat. Odds are good that as soon as the closest attacker gets shot, the rest will cease to be a threat.....or they'll pull out their firearms. Regardless, I would immediately call and report the incident afterward, whether or not I actually used deadly force.

This video is a good example of why situational awareness and decisiveness are critical to ones health and well being. IMO, the threats clearly displayed hostile intent early enough to justify drawing a firearm for defense without firing. However, that window of opportunity was brief, and when it was closed, deadly force would indeed be justified to defend yourself.

My .02c...............

Very well put sir

[Kythas]

My deadly force ROE. Take it for what it's worth...

Intent + ability + immediacy = deadly force

In that situation I would have come to the conclusion that those 3....."gentlemen", intended to cause me great bodily harm and/or death.
- Hostile manner of speaking
- Aggressive positioning in order to isolate my movement

Intent = condition met to use deadly force.

I would also believe that they had the ability to cause great bodily harm and/or death.
- Disparity of force existed as there were multiple individuals

Ability = condition met to use deadly force.

I do not believe that there was an immediate need for deadly force, due to the initial distance factor of the threats when they first exhibited their hostile behavior, and the chance that the threats may have stopped if a firearm was produced and a warning issued. However, as soon as the threats ignored the warning and continued to close the distance, I believe there was an immediate need to use deadly force to stop their threat.

Immediacy = condition initially unmet due to distance / early hostile behavioral cues, condition met upon refusal to comply with warning

Action taken to stop threat: Draw, warn, and engage should they fail to heed the warning.

Based on their display of hostile intent, and the fact they had the ability to carry out the same, I would have drawn my firearm and issued a warning in an attempt to stop their threat, and should they fail to comply, I would use deadly force to stop the attacker/s, and immediately stop when there is no longer a threat. Odds are good that as soon as the closest attacker gets shot, the rest will cease to be a threat.....or they'll pull out their firearms. Regardless, I would immediately call and report the incident afterward, whether or not I actually used deadly force.

This video is a good example of why situational awareness and decisiveness are critical to ones health and well being. IMO, the threats clearly displayed hostile intent early enough to justify drawing a firearm for defense without firing. However, that window of opportunity was brief, and when it was closed, deadly force would indeed be justified to defend yourself.

My .02c...............

Excellent explanation.

I would have definitely drawn my weapon initially as well.

I disagree with one thing, though. At the point in the video where I saw the victim, the three assailants were definitely within range of being an immediate threat. A person can cross 10-20 feet in a matter of 2-3 seconds, and three people taking up positions as they were doing while displaying hostile intent (if a person walks up to you with the body language of the men in the video and addressing you as they did "wassup *****", that is indication of hostile intent. I've seen it too often) that does, indeed, indicate immediacy of threat. They were advertising to him what their intent was and attempting to gauge his level of response. If he attempts to run, they know they have an easy mark. If he displays a weapon at that point, they may back off. I doubt these individuals were armed. If they were, they would have displayed their weapons early in the confrontation to intimidate the victim and let him know he shouldn't resist. However, were they armed, the production of a weapon by the victim may result in the production of a weapon by one or more of the assailants and you now find yourself in a firefight.

This is probably where I would get in trouble in some instances. When I was a cop I received some advice my first day on the street by my FTO which basically boiled down to "When in doubt, draw". However, as a CHL if I follow that advice I run the risk of intentional failure to conceal or whatever else they may want to throw at me. Because, again as my FTO told me, "You never want to be in a situation where the bad guy has his gun in his hand and yours is still in its holster." But the CHL laws could force that situation on us.

[jamisjockey]

I'm not sure there is a more clear example of disparity of force.

[Fire1141]

im relatively new to chl also. i have read many, many "what would you do" threads, and think i have a pretty firm grasp on the laws. if i think someone is going to get close enough to hit me, and they are speaking as in the video, i draw. they continue to get closer, i shoot. i will not allow someone to kick me in the head and possibly kill me. if my family is with me, the distance i allow an aggressive person or people to get grows exponentially.

[Fangs]

I don't think I've ever seen someone act like these assailants without the intention of picking a fight. Personally, I would have taken off at a sprint as soon as they directed their attention toward me. If they gave chase I would have reasonably believed that I was about to get robbed / assaulted, at which point I would draw, turn around, and start shooting. Seems that being chased down by a group of individuals would count for reasonably believing that deadly force was necessary, and then they'd all be in a straight line too...

If I was with a girl in high heels or something that prevented me from attempting to bail out, I would have stopped, put my back to the wall, and drawn my weapon. Not sure how much time, if any, I would have given them to reconsider once they processed that I was armed. If they didn't immediately back off I'd have to assume that they're armed or high, or both.

I'm not trying to make light of taking their lives, but I don't feel any obligation to see whether or not I survive the beating before I defend myself. These guys went out with the intention of causing someone physical harm. It's just chance that they didn't kill the guy, despite kicking him while he was down.

[ELB]

Frankly, I have a hard time seeing what is really going on prior to the kid actually getting beaten. Had I had a few seconds warning, I would have been screaming commands, hand on gun at least, maneuver to any kind of protection avaialble, but for sure I would have had my knife out.

And if they got in close, as within a couple steps to hands-on, before I realized what was up, I would have not messed around with a gun. It would have been knife time.

Much better weapon at contact distances -- much harder to disarm, doesn't jam, doesn't need reloading, easier to make bigger, bloodier, and more importantly, disabling wounds. And psychologically speaking, I think a knife close up is scarier than a gun. Especially when the other clowns see their thug-buddy bleeding all over the ground.

And yes, I think three or four young punks pounding on my 51 year old body counts as enough disparity of force to go all amok on them.

[jamisjockey]

Do you have knife training? I mean, real knife training? If you're planning on using it as a contact weapon, you'd better know what you're doing. As a stopping weapon, knives are very ineffective unless in trained hands.