Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

Response to a beating?

Discussion in 'Education & Training' started by Sun195, Apr 9, 2009.

  1. Sun195

    Sun195 Pugetropolis, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,081
    Likes Received:
    375
    There have been a number of beatings up here lately. Many of these have been multiple assailants against one victim. Some of them have been fatal for the victim. This one most recently happened at a transit center:

    What's the proper response if you witness something like this and are armed?
     
  2. Mutoman

    Mutoman North Bend Active Member

    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    137
    More than one guy beating up a disabled person, sounds like a deadly physical force situation to me.
     
  3. wakejoe

    wakejoe Beaverton, OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,024
    Likes Received:
    132
    People are going to beat some dude who can't even stand up?

    The world is a little bit brighter without them.
     
  4. Dutchy556

    Dutchy556 Bend, OR Member

    Messages:
    505
    Likes Received:
    12
    Every situation is different, so there really isn't a "proper" response to this sort of thing...

    Suffice it to say that instances of physical force where the odds are stacked like that (multiple assailants, disabled victim) against the victim start spilling over into the deadly physical force category.

    Attackers have ability and opportunity, victim is in jeopardy... deadly physical force is justified.

    So, IMO, the "proper response" is anything up-to and including drawing your weapon, and if the immediate threat of deadly physical force continues, using it.

    Question is: Are you ready to draw down on a bunch of thugs? There are a LOT of factors to consider. Are you alone? Who else is around? Do the assailants have backup? Might THEY be armed? etc etc etc.

    Biggest question to ask yourself: Is what you are witnessing mutual combat? If so DO NOT GET INVOLVED (I mean, unless someones really about to kill someone I guess). If you come to someone's aid you had best be sure they're an innocent victim.

    Me personally, if I were watching some dudes beat a handicapped person? I'd clear leather (or kydex, depending on the day). No way in H3ll I'd watch someone get beaten.

    EDIT: I might TRY and deescalate the situation verbally before drawing down but it would really depend on the situation and the swiftness/severity of the violence.


    I AM NOT A LAWYER. THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. I'm just a guy who's taken some classes and read the statutes a whole bunch.

    There are no cut-and-dried answers to questions like this because every situation is different. Look up the laws on use of force for your state, if necessary consult an attorney, and then make your own conclusions.
     
  5. Spray-n-pray

    Spray-n-pray Battle Ground Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,959
    Likes Received:
    1,038
    Sometimes to "do the right thing" consists of not worrying about the potential consequences to yourself. If I saw (God forbid) that a disabled man was being attacked by multiple assailants, I would like to say that I would help by any and all means available to me. I don't mean to say that I would immediately draw a concealed weapon, but there is no way that I could just stand by and do nothing. If you get in trouble for potentially saving a person's life, then IMO it is worth it. For cryin out loud, don't we have any kind of "good Samaritan" type laws in WA?
     
  6. Keane

    Keane Hillsboro, OR Active Member

    Messages:
    734
    Likes Received:
    52
    In just about every state with self-defense/defense of others laws, there is a theory called 'disparity of force'. Even when no weapons are used, 'ganging' up on someone is considered lethal force, and is capable of being responded to as such.
     
  7. Spray-n-pray

    Spray-n-pray Battle Ground Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,959
    Likes Received:
    1,038
    Let's put it this way, if you were the one getting beat, would you prefer that someone come to your aid, or deliberate over the repercussions of law for a while first?
     
  8. Spray-n-pray

    Spray-n-pray Battle Ground Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,959
    Likes Received:
    1,038
    Darn straight! If the odds are 6 to (disabled) 1, it is pretty easy to inflict lethal damage.
     
  9. Keane

    Keane Hillsboro, OR Active Member

    Messages:
    734
    Likes Received:
    52
  10. The Dude

    The Dude The 206, WA Member

    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    0
    Went a diggin' through "In the Gravest Extreme" by Masad Ayoob 'cause that scenario sounded familiar, but couldn't find a clear cut answer; Lots of if's, and's & but's. I'd like to hear Ayoob address this scenario, though what Dutchy said sounds pretty Ayoobish.
     
  11. Keane

    Keane Hillsboro, OR Active Member

    Messages:
    734
    Likes Received:
    52
    My first link is from Masad Ayoob.
     
  12. RallySoob

    RallySoob Salem, OR Active Member

    Messages:
    1,041
    Likes Received:
    26
    6 attackers beating 1 disabled person = justification for lethal force in my mind. Do you really think a judge would put you away for saving a disabled man? He was beat bad, not just hit a few times. Those guys probably all have priors too. man I hope they catch those guys
     
  13. Sun195

    Sun195 Pugetropolis, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,081
    Likes Received:
    375
  14. korntera

    korntera Oregon Member

    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    14
    My first reaction based on the fact that there was only a polite request to settle down before the disabled man was attacked by more than one assailant would be to draw on them and try to deescalate the situation from there, but if a disabled man is being beaten by even one person what is the reason for that person to not kill them? I would say deadly force is necessary. If the person is disabled at can't fight back, if then anything more than one hit is more than the deserve for anything they could have done to provoke a fight.
     
  15. treemanx

    treemanx Spray, Or. Active Member

    Messages:
    1,325
    Likes Received:
    14
    "Deadly physical force" (defined as "force readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury") is only lawful when it is used against a person reasonably believed to be attempting to commit a felony involving the threatened or imminent use of physical force against a person, or to defend against a burglary in a dwelling. A dwelling is a place where someone lives and sleeps. Oregon law restricts the use of deadly physical force to situations where it is unavoidable and there is no reasonable way to escape the conflict, which is sometimes referred to as "the necessity rule."

    While every citizen has the duty to attempt to avoid a conflict, there are circumstances where a person need not retreat, such as if the defender is in their dwelling or place of business, or if retreat would create a further safety risk. Most applications of deadly physical force involve an emergency and eventual involvement of law enforcement. Later, the individual facts of each case are weighed under the law in order to assess the gravity of the threat. Sensationalized news accounts about homeowners charged with assault, or robbery victims who have been charged with a crime after they have shot their assailants, inevitably involve a set of facts where there was a clear opportunity to avoid hurting someone and the use of force was no longer justified by the circumstances. Recent examples include situations where a homeowner shoots a car prowler when the car prowler is running away from the scene or when a street robbery victim chases and then shoots the person who has just stolen a purse or wallet; in each case the necessity for use of deadly force is examined; was it out of proportion to the level of danger faced by the shooters? If Oregon law is examined carefully, the idea that citizens may use any level of force necessary under the circumstances is powerful, reasonable and flexible. Ultimately, it is up to a jury in a courtroom to weigh all the facts and apply the law. The claim that citizens are routinely punished by the law for reasonable efforts at self defense is almost always someone's bid for attention and does not hold up under careful scrutiny.

    Also, check this link out.....

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States
     
  16. Doc In UPlace

    Doc In UPlace Tacoma-ish Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,643
    Likes Received:
    2,030
    Washington law which has jurisdiction in Federal way, says,

    RCW 9A.16.050
    Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.

    Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

    (1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished or

    (2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.

    I'd say breaking the face and bones of a handicapped individual fits the "great personal injury" qualification.

    Give 'em a chance to stop and move away from the victim, then do what is necessary, IMO.

    For those who have not read it, here is the Washington Criminal Justice Training Commission Study Guide for Security, Bail Agents and PI's armed endorsement. I think everyone should read it.
     
  17. RainbowBob

    RainbowBob North Seattle Member

    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0

    Actually, the victim was quoted as follows:

    This is not "blame the victim" - there is absolutely NO justification for this violent criminal assault.

    But...

    Saying "please" doesn't make "shut up" a "polite request".

    Approaching a group of loud punks to request they shut up may be justified - but not advisable.

    If you are a lone armed bystander (perhaps with a 5-shooter in your pocket) - you're looking at multiple combatants, some of whom are likely armed themselves.

    Tough odds for a good Samaritan.

    If we're talking hypothetically, everyone is better off ignoring the loud thugs.

    I'm not talking about ceding our communities to the loudest and most violent amongst us.

    I'm talking about accepting the need to tolerate some degree of rude behavior in the world as it is today in order to avoid deadly conflict with permanent consequences far more serious than a temporary annoyance.
     
  18. Redrum

    Redrum Portlandia Active Member

    Messages:
    141
    Likes Received:
    31
    2 people or more attacking one person is Assault III in Oregon. which is a C felony

    http://corrections.oregonafscme.com/legal/ors163.160.htm

    if the injuries sustained are bad enuff..it can also be an assault II

    if they stomp the guy it can be elevated assault II + assault III

    if they stomp the guy and have combat/logging/steel toe boots on it can be elevated to assault I + assault III

    just on face value from whats written in the story. You have at minimun an Assault III happening in front of you.. In Oregon those guys are shootable and you would be legally justified..if it happend on the Max you'd be a bonified hero
     
  19. RainbowBob

    RainbowBob North Seattle Member

    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0

    They may be legally "shootable" - but don't count on our 'hero" getting a medal and a wall plaque. And if he does, it may well be given posthumously to his family.

    One handgun against a group of presumably armed violent thugs is not gonna be a cake walk.
     
  20. Hallofo

    Hallofo Springtucky, OR New Member

    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    Very true! But (IMO), that’s one of the responsibilities that comes with the decision to carry... to defend not only yourself, but others that cannot as well. I am in no way justifying any sort of vigilante behavior, I'm just saying that in a similar circumstance I would feel it my duty to protect someone getting beat for telling some thugs to shut up.

    That said, I would also say it would have been wise to have the police involved, (if possible) and going to confront them ONLY if there was the imminent threat of property destruction and/or physical hard to someone. In this case, there was little time to do that, and any police response would have been to slow to prevent anything, other than escape for the perps.