Why not here?

[para driver]

I have a couple of problems with this..
1) you don't NEED a gun to defend yourself
2) it might have been helpful to stick a .45 in 'troubles' face
3) I probably would have shot the guy attacking my wife under these circumstances..

I travel and therefore can not always carry a gun with me, Chicago, LA and NYC for example. I therefore have chosen to learn something of the martial arts. I'm not Bruce Lee by any stretch of the imagination, but I feel capable after a few years of training. We do practice 'multiple attacker' routines, but 20 is more than anyone can handle.

therefore:
4) I would have targeted 'trouble' as one of the ring leaders and beat the snot out of him.. cut off the head, and the snake don't know where to crawl.. I'm pushing 50, and if he's 20 that's all the better.

[stevie_d_64]

There's a lot more study to be had in understanding this situation...

But after September 1st...Most of this becomes a moot point...

Its an unfortunate trend in society today where people like this believe it is important to express themselves today in an intimidating and violent way...

The person writing this does not appear to be instigating anything other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time, but that is not their fault, and no one should have to be burdened with worrying about that that have no intent on causing problems...

Venus has it right...We all know without expressing it publically, what our personal course of "reaction" will (or could) be...We will always "reasonably" determine what amount of force will be necessary to stop the assault, per the law...

The rest is academic...

These situations and the proper reaction to them is always a tough sell...What you have to do is make sure your reaction is not based upon emotion...Easier said than done, you betcha!

I would be hard pressed to see someone assault my wife in this manner...They will never be that unhappy, ever again...Nuff said...

One thing to possibly keep in mind is always have the head, as best you can on a swivle when you leave an establishment...In this case, we would probably have gone right back inside till things cool off outside...I would have also called the law...

But thats just my knee-jerk reaction...

[Photoman]

As we walked out the door, there was a large group of young
>people at the bottom of the stairs milling around in the parking lot,
>two men were walking through the crowd staring and yelling as people
>passed them

Why did they continue? Why didn't they 180 right back inside and call the police?

I am under no obligation to confront criminals and I think unarmed citizen patrols are a VERY bad idea.

[Mithras61]

In this case, we would probably have gone right back inside till things cool off outside...I would have also called the law...

But thats just my knee-jerk reaction...

That was my first thought as well. Continuing into an area where violence is already being instigated doesn't demonstrate clear thinking in my opinion. I'm not condoning what the thugs did, but the fact is that when you go right through the middle of a group of them that you can see from the outset are looking for trouble just doesn't make sense.

The author is right in that we need to be in control of our towns and cities, but this is sort of like coming out of your house and finding a pack of dogs fighting over something in your front yard, and deciding that the best course of action is to go try and take whatever it is away from them. Not a very well thought out plan.

[LedJedi]

I am not a Baytown resident, but I would like to offer my thoughts on your question....

As citizens, a portion of our taxes are supposed to pay professionals to do this for us. However, if that system is failing, I believe the citizens do have the rights to do as you say...with limitations.

Due to the nature of this threat (large group, random violence), it will appear (and probably be true) that your citizen group will seek out this violent gang. What follows must undoubtedly be a confrontation. It would be best if the professionals were called in to have this confrontation as they have more training, equipment and authority than you, but that may not be possible. So now you have a confrontation between armed citizens who have sought out a group of thugs. I don't expect things to go well from here. But then again, the situation isn't good now.

I applaud you for being willing to take action. Just think carefully through what situations you may create and how they may turn out, including some worst case scenarios. Are you willing to live with them?

The professionals WERE called and said they could do nothing.

Who else do you call? How many times do you pass the buck on who is responsible for your own safety and liberty?

Others are not responsible for our safety.
(see: http://www.gunowners.org/sk0503.htm)

>>YOU<< and you alone are responsible for your own safety. To give that responsibility up is to take one giant leap toward tyranny. It seems like tyranny is already upon them. It's time to step up to the plate and fight for liberty and the freedom to pursue of your own happiness.

I am TIRED of Americans saying. "Leave it to the professionals."

Are we yet still a nation of cowards?

http://www.jim.com/cowards.htm

See also the writings of Jeff Cooper.

[Xander]

The professionals WERE called and said they could do nothing.

Who else do you call? How many times do you pass the buck on who is responsible for your own safety and liberty?

Others are not responsible for our safety.
(see: http://www.gunowners.org/sk0503.htm)

>>YOU<< and you alone are responsible for your own safety. To give that responsibility up is to take one giant leap toward tyranny. It seems like tyranny is already upon them. It's time to step up to the plate and fight for liberty and the freedom to pursue of your own happiness.

I think one issue that we're having in this discussion is that we've diverged into several different sub-threads focused on different scenarios and different responses are appropriate to each.

Regarding this scenario specifically, I agree with GlockenHammer. Being responsible for one's own safety does not translate to vigilantism. Texas law makes no provisions for those out seeking retribution, or taking the law into their own hands. Like it or not, we are not peace officers, and owning and carrying a gun doesn't make it ok for us to go out and clean up the streets.


This is *not* however, the same as the situation in the original article, where members of your party, your wife and your friends are being actively attacked. I don't think that we can say from this distance whether or not retreat may have been a better option for them. It may have been, it may not have been. Once one is under attack, however, I certainly *do* agree that it is entirely your responsibility to protect yourself the ones that you love.

[LedJedi]

Regarding this scenario specifically, I agree with GlockenHammer. Being responsible for one's own safety does not translate to vigilantism. Texas law makes no provisions for those out seeking retribution, or taking the law into their own hands. Like it or not, we are not peace officers, and owning and carrying a gun doesn't make it ok for us to go out and clean up the streets.

Nobody ever breathed a word about seeking retribution or vigilantism. If you respond to violence that is immediately visited upon you in kind with violence when it is immediately necessary it is neither retribution or vigilantism. It is self defense.

Taking the law into your own hands is a trigger phrase for me. Who's hands should it be taken into? Am I, a loyal, patriotic, tax paying citizen, not worthy to follow the law? I am not an enforcer, but I am aware of the law and I will abide by it (when it is not in conflict with my guaranteed freedoms and responsibilities).

That law in my hands provides me the right to defense of my person, my loved ones, my property and even others should it be immediately necessary. That is what taking the law into my own hands is.

It is not what it has come to mean in our society which roughly translates to "ignoring the law and doing what you want, regardless of right or wrong". Taking the law into my own hands is being able to defend myself and my loved once under the protection of the law.

I will most certainly take the law into my own hands. That is what it is there for. It belongs in the hands of the individual citizen more than anyone else.

They're your streets. They're public. Who's responsibility is it to keep them safe? The fraction of our population that is noble enough to make it their full-time job? They cannot and are not everywhere all the time, despite their best efforts.

[Xander]

Nobody ever breathed a word about seeking retribution or vigilantism. If you respond to violence that is immediately visited upon you in kind with violence when it is immediately necessary it is neither retribution or vigilantism. It is self defense.

This is where the sub-threads is getting to us, I think. The post that GlockenHammer wrote that you were quoting (intentionally or not) was pretty specifically warning against vigilantism...It wasn't about finding yourself in a situation where violence is immediately necessary.

-Xander

[Venus Pax]

This thread has really taken some turns. I realize by reading my past posts that I haven't been clear at all. I apologize.

By C&P'ing the e-mail I was sent, I was attempting to draw a mental picture of the conditions in Baytown. (Many of my colleagues, who live in Baytown, refuse to go to the Wal-Mart.)

Citizens' patrol is a deterrent, and has more to do with influencing the climate of a neighborhood rather than defense of third parties.

Molon Labe, I hope you don't mind if I use you as an example since you're a Baytown citizen:
Let's say that Molon lives in Chaparral. Molon and his neighbors form a neighborhood watch group. They have a calling tree and all types of systems set up in conjunction with Baytown P.D. to watch the neighborhood. Part of Molon's role in this is to patrol the streets on foot with a few other neighbors. Let's say they see a few youths loitering on Ms. Little-old-lady's yard. They don't recognize these youths.
One of Molon's buddy's pulls out his copy of the calling tree and call's Ms. Little-old-lady. (You never know, this could be her grandson & his friends!)
Sudden change: One of the youths is attempting to enter her house by messing with the lock. (Maybe this isn't her grandson.)
While Molon's friend is on the phone talking to Ms. Little, Molon is calling 911.
Ms. Little may go to the door and chastize her grandson for losing his key. Or Ms. Little may say that her grandson is on the other side of Houston, doesn't pick locks, and chooses to hunker down in her master bedroom (preferably with a gun pointed toward the door) until Baytown P.D. clears the house.

Is this a bit clearer? A citizens' patrol isn't a group of untrained volunteer cops; just a deterrent and an assistance.

[WarHawk-AVG]

Yes....if you as a CHL holder was out shopping and turned the corner and saw a group of hulligans beating the bejesus out of a husband/wife (as in the story) is DF justifiable

Not putting on a punisher shirt, strappin iron and looking for trouble

"Yell hey you stop, I called 9/11, only to have that mob turn on you?"

From the stories, its better for you to turn away, and mumble under your breath "good luck folks" and hope the mob of badguys don't hear you

What would be THE course of action? This isn't a what if, this is you as a CHL holder come upon a situation where you must defend SOMEONE ELSE'S life.

[Xander]

What would be THE course of action? This isn't a what if, this is you as a CHL holder come upon a situation where you must defend SOMEONE ELSE'S life.

If it were somebody I didn't know, and that was the situation I walked in on without having any other information about what was going on? I'd be hesitant to do more than call 911. Walking up on a fight in progress just doesn't give me enough information for me to feel like I could confidently use deadly force, and know that I'm shooting the right person for the right reason.

In Charles Cotton's deadly force seminar that I went to last Friday night, he had an example of a very similar situation. CHL holder walks out and seeing a guy beating the living daylights out of a helpless girl. Shoots the guy. Turns out to be the girl's boyfriend, and they were practicing for a play.

EDIT: Of course, as always, this is only a personal opinion. Your milage may vary.

'Nother edit: Just clarified a bit, I think. Less of an absolute response to an uncertain hypothetical. :-)

[WarHawk-AVG]

'Nother edit: Just clarified a bit, I think. Less of an absolute response to an uncertain hypothetical. :-)

Very well good awnser..I just hope if ever presented with a situation such as this I will react properly

[stevie_d_64]

The professionals WERE called and said they could do nothing.

Who else do you call? How many times do you pass the buck on who is responsible for your own safety and liberty?

Others are not responsible for our safety.
(see: http://www.gunowners.org/sk0503.htm)

>>YOU<< and you alone are responsible for your own safety. To give that responsibility up is to take one giant leap toward tyranny. It seems like tyranny is already upon them. It's time to step up to the plate and fight for liberty and the freedom to pursue of your own happiness.

I think one issue that we're having in this discussion is that we've diverged into several different sub-threads focused on different scenarios and different responses are appropriate to each.

Regarding this scenario specifically, I agree with GlockenHammer. Being responsible for one's own safety does not translate to vigilantism. Texas law makes no provisions for those out seeking retribution, or taking the law into their own hands. Like it or not, we are not peace officers, and owning and carrying a gun doesn't make it ok for us to go out and clean up the streets.


This is *not* however, the same as the situation in the original article, where members of your party, your wife and your friends are being actively attacked. I don't think that we can say from this distance whether or not retreat may have been a better option for them. It may have been, it may not have been. Once one is under attack, however, I certainly *do* agree that it is entirely your responsibility to protect yourself the ones that you love.

WELL STATED!!!

[jrosto]

A situation similar to this occurred in Long Beach California earlier this year:

LONG BEACH - Several suspects including at least three men who savagely beat three young women in a horrific hate crime attack Halloween night remained at large Friday.

The three victims - two of whom are 19 and the third 21 - agreed to sit down with a Press-Telegram reporter and discuss the painful attack in the hope that someone who knows the culprits will turn them in to police.

The young women asked to be identified by only their first names of Laura, Michelle and Lauren because they and their families fear for their safety. The assault, they said, was so savage they thank God they are alive.

...Lauren suffered 12 fractures in her face, including four to her eye socket, three to her nose and three to her cheek.

Doctors don't yet know if she will regain all of her eyesight. Until the swelling goes down, they won't know if she'll require surgery to repair the many broken bones.

Michelle...

Her face, like Lauren's and Laura's, is bruised and swollen. The lining that surrounds her lungs is also bruised.

And Laura...

She, like Lauren, suffered a concussion as well as multiple contusions. The lumps and marks on the back of her head and her back show where she was stomped, kicked and punched as she lay on the ground.

While these girls were being beaten to a pulp, there were a lot of folks standing on the sidelines. A few even called 911.

What put a stop to it?

In all, the attack lasted about 10 minutes, and it ended only when a Good Samaritan driving by the melee stopped and physically blocked the battered girls bodies while yanking the assailants off the victims.

Sometimes taking action is the only right thing to do.

More on this incident here.

[jrosto]

Now to offer my answer to the original question.

A civil defense group, citizens patrol, crime watch or how ever it may be organized is a great idea.

Protection our neighborhoods is our responsibility. We carry out that responsibility first by electing quality civic leaders who hire and maintain a quality police force. The police force is made up of civilians, usually citizens of the community (that is to say that the police are not the military). We, as responsible free citizens, assist our civic leaders and police as necessary by working with them and developing a plan that works for our community. If that entails an armed citizen patrol, then so be it. What I find interesting is that neighborhoods that work together and are responsible for each other, usually have no real need of an armed patrol.