TexasCHLforum.com

Disparity of force/use of deadly force against unarmed assailant(s) seems to be a periodic discussion on this forum, but I have not seen any references to the following, so thought some might find this useful, especially since the video (for once) is pretty clear and you can see what is actually going on.

Andrew Branca is a lawyer who specializes in self-defense cases, or at least he handles and studies enough of them to write a book about the legalities of self-defense. He began posting at Legal Insurrection during the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin trial, and has continued there giving his thoughts on various cases where self-defense was alleged.

About a week ago he posted on the use of lethal force in self-defense as it might apply to the Ferguson Missouri incident. When can you legally use a gun against an unarmed person?

Just a couple days ago, also in Missouri, a young couple were set upon and beaten by several attackers, so Branca has another post, directly applying his analysis to an actual incident where you can watch and see what he is talking about. The couple was not armed, and although not killed, press accounts say they were seriously injured. The couple was not armed, and basically were beaten until two police officers ran onto the scene. (Hey! for once the police were only seconds away - which did not save the couple from a serious beating.) However, the police did not catch any of the attackers, and last I heard were still looking for them.

Here is the post where Branca analyzes the attack and gives his opinion about whether the couple could have legally used lethal force to defend themselves...if they had been suitably equipped: Caught on Video: Vicious Group Attack by Thugs on Young Couple

Here is the video itself:

[video]http://youtu.be/NEI22qD33Wo[/video]

Sure seems like deadly force would have been justified in this case if either of the victims had been armed. But, we all know that if deadly force had been used by one of the victims the liberal media would have turned it all around and gone on a witch hunt for the victim's actually defending themselves and it wouldn't matter how many thugs were attacking them or how badly they were hurt. If their injuries weren't life threatening and verified by a doctor afterwards any use of deadly force would be completely unnecessary in any liberal's eyes.

C-dub wrote:Sure seems like deadly force would have been justified in this case if either of the victims had been armed. But, we all know that if deadly force had been used by one of the victims the liberal media would have turned it all around and gone on a witch hunt for the victim's actually defending themselves and it wouldn't matter how many thugs were attacking them or how badly they were hurt. If their injuries weren't life threatening and verified by a doctor afterwards any use of deadly force would be completely unnecessary in any liberal's eyes.

That's because the media thinks you have a moral responsibility to accept a beating......even if it kills you. They LOVE the idea of a compliant population (partly because they view themselves as an unofficial extension of government......which is why they love calling themselves "the fourth estate").

That hasn't worked out for them so much recently with ISIS/ISIL. They, the liberal media, may be waking up. But, I contradict myself.

C-dub wrote:Sure seems like deadly force would have been justified in this case if either of the victims had been armed. But, we all know that if deadly force had been used by one of the victims the liberal media would have turned it all around and gone on a witch hunt for the victim's actually defending themselves and it wouldn't matter how many thugs were attacking them or how badly they were hurt. If their injuries weren't life threatening and verified by a doctor afterwards any use of deadly force would be completely unnecessary in any liberal's eyes.

I agree! The woman had a fractured ankle, I believe.

The article I read about this story is that some in the group tried to rape her, she got away and got her boyfriend, they left the club and were attacked. Maybe the best course was to call police first before going outside.

How about we take this one step removed; what if you came upon that scene while carrying.

What would/could you do?

I would draw and shout "Stop or I'll shoot!". If any of them advanced toward me, I'd shoot them immediately.

My only question is, how do you know they are "unarmed"? Just because they are not waving around a knife or holding a gun doesn't mean they can't pull one out at anytime. Yes, you may catch some heck after the fact, but if I feel my life is at threat....

I would be more apt to feel the girl threatened w/ rape if I was subdued. 5 men would take here pretty easily after the man is down & out.

txglock21 wrote:My only question is, how do you know they are "unarmed"? Just because they are not waving around a knife or holding a gun doesn't mean they can't pull one out at anytime. Yes, you may catch some heck after the fact, but if I feel my life is at threat....

Bingo!!!

Remember, if -we- are able to conceal a weapon, so are the goblins! Empty hands can rather quickly be filled! If a group of thugs is in "attack mode," even if they are "unarmed," they don't act like the believe they are, and so they are not. The mind is the ultimate weapon; bare hands can and have killed, and if a thug is acting confident in his ability to deal damage with his hands, he can probably back that confidence up with actions.

JSThane wrote:

txglock21 wrote:My only question is, how do you know they are "unarmed"? Just because they are not waving around a knife or holding a gun doesn't mean they can't pull one out at anytime. Yes, you may catch some heck after the fact, but if I feel my life is at threat....

Bingo!!!

Remember, if -we- are able to conceal a weapon, so are the goblins! Empty hands can rather quickly be filled! If a group of thugs is in "attack mode," even if they are "unarmed," they don't act like the believe they are, and so they are not. The mind is the ultimate weapon; bare hands can and have killed, and if a thug is acting confident in his ability to deal damage with his hands, he can probably back that confidence up with actions.

Goblins! I like that description.

I wish I could take credit for the term, but sadly, it's not original to me. I forget exactly where I picked it up, but I've been using it for quite a while.

Contact Al Sharpton and see what he would want us to do in a situation like this.

texas-sig wrote:Contact Al Sharpton and see what he would want us to do in a situation like this.

Probably get in line and wait for our turn.

JSThane wrote:I wish I could take credit for the term, but sadly, it's not original to me. I forget exactly where I picked it up, but I've been using it for quite a while.

Did you ever read much that Jeff Cooper wrote. Seems I remember him using goblins for the BGs.