Situations of doubt

[Grognard Gunny]

Had my first somewhat serious confrontation situation in a long time last evening.

I arrived into our Church gym/social hall last night to find the current "Leader" of our Christian Men's Group (75 years old, if a day) in a shouting contest (screaming ??) with the two coaches of the Church School Boys Basketball Team. (The older around 35 +/-, the younger late 20s, both fairly physically fit.)

Ever the peacemaker, I tried to insert myself in between the two sets of antagonists to settle things down. (As it was a pretty pitiful display for supposed adults to be enguaged in.) All I got for my trouble was the older coach to "go off" on me and threaten me. I saw immediately that I had stepped into a situation wherein the older "coach" was on the point of losing complete control of himself. (i.e. His body language, rage level of his invective and general demeaner put me well on my guard.... I fully expected this guy to "rush" his 75 year old antagonist at any moment.)

Realizing that, I shut up and tried to stay between the two groups, expecting the worst and knowing full well that I would NOT let this "coach" attack an elderly gentleman. (I know, the "White Knight Syndrome" in full display.) I got the feeling that the junior of the two "coaches" was beginning to get the same signals I was, as HE stopped yelling and sort of edged his way in between the primary adversaries also. He had to physically "hold" the elder coach once or twice in the continuing "rage".

That's the background of the situation. I'm "packing", got my little .32 auto in my pocket, but I'm also thinking that it would HAVE to be a use of last resort, which meant that either our 75 YO Leader is going to have to take the first blow, or I am. While I might still have the chutzpah to "surprise" some people in a defense of my self from fisticuffs.... neither John nor myself would not last long against either one of them, let alone two.

So there I was, readily committed to allowing myself to be subject to bodily harm before I drew on this jerk... IF I was still capable of it once hit. If I had drawn, I envisioned myself trying to defend my actions in Court because ".. the perp gave every indication of being ready to inflict bodily harm." At which the Prosecuter, if worth his salt at all, would merely observe that the perp did NOT enguage in inflicting "bodily harm" but only, in MY estimation, seemed like he was.

THAT would get me cited for a few "anti-gun" provisions of the Law and get my lisence to carry "pulled"..... at the very least.

So.... Two questions here.

1) Is that the way we have to think? That we have to "take" at least some bodily harm from a perp in a heated arguement situation before we can "draw down", possibly shoot to protect yourself and others FROM that harm?

2) I have written the Pastor of the Church concerning the behavior of this boor. Would you want this character of such little self control and a hair trigger temper as coach for a bunch of 6-8th grader wannabee basketball players?

Oh.... Guess what the entire arguement stemmed from? The coach had just decided to schedule a practice that night and didn't bother to block off the time with the Church Office (as is proper when wishing to use any of the Church Facilities). On the other hand, our group HAD gotten the time alloted to us. The Coach, apparently, was upset because we were setting up for our meeting and disturbed his practice by so doing. When he and the team weren't supposed to be there at all!

All he had to say (other than self admitting that he was in the wrong here) was "Oh. You're scheduled in this evening? Ok, give me a minute and we wil get out of your way." Simple as that. Instead he had to make a Federal Case of it and completely show, not only his "team" but everyone present what a complete and total jerk he is.

What say you guys, on either question posed above?

GG

 

[Bozz]

Alright, here is my take as a firearms instructor and someone who is relatively well versed in laws in FLORIDA. I see that you are in North Carolina so I admittedly DO NOT know their laws that well but am fairly confident that most states (except NJ, MA, IL, and a few others) are similar.

I don't think you did anything wrong by trying to diffuse the situation and inserting yourself between known-parties to try and calm things down.

However, I also DO NOT see anything that would justify your use of lethal force from what you have described. Now, if it became an all out attack on the 75+ YO party and his life appeared to be in grave danger (like them both beating him to a pulp) then that is a different story.

In Florida, where I am most familiar with the Lawful use of Deadly Force -- your actions cannot be 'excessive' to the circumstances. So, someone punching you or anyone else in a scuffle doesn't give you the right to use deadly force. It must go beyond that, before you are covered.

Hope this helps, you did the right thing IMHO... and asking for opinions here is a good move too. Take your education a step further and research the laws in North Carolina so you understand what they say/mean.

 

[PAcarrier]

Gunny,

Tough situation. Here are my thoughts:
1. The coach has got to go. There must be a code of conduct for leaders in any type of organization, particularly one that provides role model development for kids. You did the right thing with taking the issue to the next level in your church.
2. Unfortunately, I think you might be right about "taking a punch" in this type of situation before defense is justifiable. Having said that about this particular situation, let me also say that this is probably the exception, not the rule. In most situations where someone justifiably pulls their weapon in self-defense, it is versus a (actual or would be) criminal intending to harm you. Hopefully, you would have withdrawn from the situation if possible, but if not, you *should* be justified in drawing prior to taking a punch. Those are two entirely different scenarios, and each requires a different response.

Hope this helps. Good luck with those rowdy boys in your church!

 

[eaccents]

Use of deadly force & setting a good example

Your question #1: "Is that the way we have to think? That we have to "take" at least some bodily harm from a perp in a heated arguement situation before we can "draw down", possibly shoot to protect yourself and others FROM that harm?"

I think that in order to answer your question one has to have a good understanding of the use of deadly force in *your state.* In Michigan, where I live, deadly force is legally permissible when it is proportional to the threat. Meaning, that deadly force may be used to prevent death, great bodily harm that could lead to death, or rape.

Therefore, under Michigan law, you would have to believe that death, great bodiy harm that could lead to death, or rape was *imminent.* There is nothing in Michigan's statutes that indicate that one must "take at least some bodily harm" prior to use of force--only that the force used to fend off the attack should be proportional to the force used by the attacker.

In the scenario that you painted for us (btw, I applaud you for taking a stand against someone who would be so aggressive with someone who is elderly...I hate bullies!), you indicate that you believed that you had an ally in the younger coach as he too eventually positioned himself between the aggressor and the elderly man. I think that between the two of you, you should have been able to restrain the out-of-control individual without use of *deadly* force.

Had the situation evolved to where you had to defend yourself and the elderly gent from *2 attackers,* then the odds of great bodily harm [to you and/or to the elderly gentleman] increase dramatically. In my state, your use of defensive force would have to be proportional to the threat...ergo, to make your defensive force proportional to the attacking forces (2 against 1 scenario) you would likely have your weapon come into play.

The laws in your state may vary from those in mine, so I strongly advise you to familiarize yourself with the wording of the use of deadly force in your home state. If that does not clear things up for you, consult a lawyer familiar with this type of law.

Your question #2: "Would you want this character of such little self control and a hair trigger temper as coach for a bunch of 6-8th grader wannabee basketball players?"

Emphatically "no!"

 

[rdm6680]

Was your life threatened? Ability, opportunity, jeopardy?

 

[ezkl2230]

I'm thinking that, as the peacemaker, it might have been even wiser for you to try to encourage the older gentleman to simply retreat, even if he was in the right. While a situation like this is frustrating, it isn't worth coming to blows - especially in a church.

And for what it's worth, the Bible gives direction for situations like this in Matthew 18, and those instructions don't include coming to a forum like this one regarding a internal problem that occurred in your church. 1 Cor. 6:5-7 has this to say about situations such as this one: "I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?" Understanding that this is hardly a court of law, the principle still holds. Situations like this should be handled IN the church, BY the church, not aired for all the world to see. And my remarks should not be taken as saying that everyone on this forum is an unbeliever; simply that this forum is an incredibly inappropriate place to be coming for input about this situation.

I'm not even going to address the issue of whether it would have been right for you to draw your firearm. I suspect the situation could have been diffused if someone had had the humility to back off when the situation began to escalate - even if they were in the right.

 

[KCD1974]

I think you handled it well, but there is ALMOST NO WAY you could have shot the guy and been okay. If you couldn't defuse the situation through speaking with him, make sure he's not attacking the elderly man and call the police. It's really that simple.

 

[SGB]

Alright, here is my take as a firearms instructor and someone who is relatively well versed in laws in FLORIDA.
-SNIP-
Hope this helps, you did the right thing IMHO... and asking for opinions here is a good move too. Take your education a step further and research the laws in North Carolina so you understand what they say/mean.

 

[Axeanda45]

ezkl2230, I totally understand what you are saying, and agree with it WHEN IT APPLIES... In this situation, it does NOT... He isnt asking us to solve the dispute between the "brothers" at all, so WHY did you even write about that aspect?

He came here with a question about mans laws and customs.....(and this IS one of the places where he CAN go to get at least somewhat correct answers for that) The fact that this happened on a so-called "church" property is NOT relevant to the conversation or situation... The "church" is simply the location....


Grog... To answer your question as to whether we are expected to "take one first" before resorting to deadly force (bringing a weapon into the situation) is a good one that is not very easily answered... As others have said, some factors have to be present before being justified, yet only the one actually in the situation can decide when those have been met..... I lean much towards judged by 12 vs carried by 6 myself... Much of it depends (like you said) on disparity of force, etc...

All that said, I think you did what you had to, and did nothing wrong.

If the EXACT as you described situation happened to me personally and it came to actual blows, I would probably NOT have drawn my weapon unless the aggressor pulled one first, IE a knife or firearm. The reason I would have waited is the location.... I just dont think it would go that far in that situation/location... I think this was more of a hot-head going off than a possible life or death situation.. But... I may have more fighting skills/confidence/ability than you at this point in time, I dont know.. It still comes down to the person IN THE SITUATION, not us arm chair quarterbacks, lol..

 

[jethrodull]

I would have him brought up on assault charges. the fact that he had to be "restrained" would seem to indicate he was putting unwanted physical contact on someone, which by most definitions I'm aware of, is assault.
J

 

[Grognard Gunny]

But he was being "restrained" by one on his side. Now there are, "here and there", laws about verbal assault, but in this instance, I was concerned that the perp was going to totally lose it and get into the realm of physical assault.

From his conditioning (apparent), I knew damn well that if it came to that, either the Club Chief or myself was going to get hurt. Possibly both of us. I called the other one on "my side" an "elderly gentleman".... fact is, I'm pushing 67 and not so far from that "category" myself.

Twenty years ago, when I was still in fine physical condition... I wouldn't have even thought of getting my butt kicked, too many years of martial arts. But..... the years have taken their toll, and my knee replacement surgery killed any residual physical fitness left in me. (Right now I'm actively enguaged in gym work four times a week pumping iron and other days working on stamena. I won't even go into how hard it is proving to shed that quick 30 pounds I got sitting pretty much on my butt "recovering" last Winter.) It's coming back, but the progress is slow.

So, how does one reconcile the use of force if a person much younger than you and in better shape by a large margin attacks you. This level of "assault" can be shaken off by younger persons. For older persons.... ANY level of assault has to be taken into consideration as to how much harm it can do you. Is THAT where "resistance by equal force" comes into equal play? I.e. this guy can easily kill me with just his fists. Am I not entitled to protect myself from that level of potential bodily harm?

Lot's of questions.... still no solid answers.

In the "films" they showed us in CCW training, personal arguement confrontations were dramatized through "situation" plays. The first was the bad guy coming on to the good guy after first arming himself with a tire iron. Two endings were shown. One where the bad guy, seeing the gun suddenly appear in your hand, gives up the conflict altogether. The second one is where the defendant is forced to shoot the guy coming at him with the tire iron even after being warned and shown the gun. (DUMB BG!)

Here's the kicker, if, as was earlier pointed out, the bad guy has no weapon other than his youth and bare hands, it seems to be the considered opinion in here that the "elderly gent" is expected to "take" the assault, knowing that even that level of violence visited on himself could be fatal, or, at least, much more serious damage than a similar fist fight between more evenly matched opponents.

If I am supposedly in the business of "carrying" to PREVENT serious bodily harm from being visited on myself or others, if I am incapable of defending myself by any other means other than the gun from ANY level of assault...... How can these ideals be compatable?

Castle Law notwithstanding, the requirement still revolves around "fear of severe bodily harm" prior to gun use. The CL only states that anyone breaking into your home is presumed to be of hostile intent, there are no legal repurcussions allowed (by the State or Civil) in cases of a righteous shoot.... and that you have the legal right to protect yourself anywhere you have a legal right to be.

I guess it all boils down to situational analysis of how "dangerous" an assault on your body can be to your continued health, of considerably more concern for the elderly than the younger. If the presumption can be made that a younger punk CAN kill an elderly person by fists alone, does this not come into play on what can be considered protection by appropriate force?

I wonder if the Courts consider any of that? (Not that I am in any hurry to "test" the case through personal experience. LOL!)

GG

 

[Grognard Gunny]

As for "backing down".... good advise. BUT... the Coach, having his ego at stake here (IMHO) at making the error of just assuming he could have the use of the gym without proper request for it, was obviously not in the mood to "back down".

As for John (elderly gentleman), I'm not exactly sure what was said or done that set him off to get into a screaming contest like that.... whatever it was it certainly brought him to a level of anger I had never witnessed in him for the ten years I have known him. Like I said, I arrived just in time to try to calm down what was obviously getting out of control rapidly.

Like I said, it was a shocking event. One only had to look at the faces of the kids on his team and the faces of the four or five other "Club" Members on hand to see how "shaking" it was for them.

Could John have backed down? I don't know, I wasn't there at the beginning of the altercation. If I had been, I would have advised just that.

Anyway, while I can't fault any of the kids on his team for not getting involved in "temper control" situations.... I have a few choice thoughts about by fellow "brothers" who WERE on the scene at the beginning and made no effort to contain the situation, right from the beginning. When a little effort and sound advise would have gone a lot further in damage control than my poor (and late) efforts.

Then they go on about Unity, Mutual support, et al, in the organization. Hypocracy at it's best, from all observed indications. Ah well, such is life in the US.

GG

 

[Axeanda45]

Hmmm, with the add'l info you have now given, IMHO, I think pulling your weapon would have been "lawful" (for lack of a better word) if in your mind, the attack was imminent... In other words, BEFORE you got hit...

 

[localgirl]

These are the moments when I like to pull out my cell phone, dial the non-emergency police number, and request they send an officer to defuse a potentially dangerous situation. It usually has the magical effect of snapping people out of their overly agitated states.

 

[Grognard Gunny]

Well, I wish SOMEONE had thought of that simple expedient. I was otherwise embroiled at the time it appeared necessary to take that route. (Again, my fellow "Brothers" COULD have taken a little more pro-action in this entire matter.)

I keep thinking that my long standing "White Knight" disorder is gonna get me killed one of these days. Maybe I should just mind my own business and not try to be a pacifist in similar situations. (Is that one of the traits of a potential sheepdog? LOL!)

Perish the thought.

GG

 

[Bozz]

I really think the questions you are asking would be more suited for an attorney, in your state, that understands the laws. Based on the laws I am familiar with, you probably wouldn't be justified in pulling your gun and using deadly force (and you can't pull it without being lawful able to use it) because there wasn't an 'act' backing up the threats.

Here is some excerpts from Florida Statute 776 that we use in our class:

Verbal Threats

Verbal threats are not enough to justify the use of deadly force. There must be an overt act by the person which indicates that that he immediately intends to carry out the threat. The person threatened must reasonably believe that he will be killed or suffer serious bodily harm.

Defending Others

If the people who you were defending were legally allowed to use deadly force to defend themselves, then it is legal for you to intervene with deadly force on their behalf.

Hope this helps! Again, this is FLORIDA law -- it may vary in North Carolina.

 

[Tucker's Mom]

Well, I wish SOMEONE had thought of that simple expedient. I was otherwise embroiled at the time it appeared necessary to take that route. (Again, my fellow "Brothers" COULD have take a little more pro-action in this entire matter.)

I keep thinking that my long standing "White Knight" disorder is gonna get me killed one of these days. Maybe I should just mind my own business and not try to be a pacifist in similar situations. (Is that one of the traits of a potential sheepdog? LOL!)

Perish the thought.

GG

In a situation where you were at that moment, you have to think quick, and hope for the best you did the right thing whatever it was. Just thank your lucky stars that you did not have to pull your gun to difuse the situation but ready to be able to should it had escalate to you being hurt.

Take care...

 

[Danmc]

I am curious about this situation. I am not a lawyer and do not know the laws, but it appeared that you injected yourself in to a situation in order to protect somebody else. However, did that person ask you for such help? If you felt that you needed to protect the elderly gentleman without his request to do so, would it have been better to simply help the elderly man to retreat? Once retreating, the scenario is over. However, if the other guy(s) then attacked you upon your retreat, would they have been initiating a brand new scenario, one in which you then would have had legal justification to fire upon your attacker if you believed that you were in imminent danger of great bodily harm or death?

 

[localgirl]

Well, I wish SOMEONE had thought of that simple expedient. I was otherwise embroiled at the time it appeared necessary to take that route. (Again, my fellow "Brothers" COULD have take a little more pro-action in this entire matter.)

I keep thinking that my long standing "White Knight" disorder is gonna get me killed one of these days. Maybe I should just mind my own business and not try to be a pacifist in similar situations. (Is that one of the traits of a potential sheepdog? LOL!)

Perish the thought.

GG

Yeah, well, I'm guilty, too. I'm always trying to take control of situations, be a peacemaker, do the right thing. I think it's genetic.

 

[revjen45]

May I suggest Evan Marshall - Handgun Stopping Power
See Dangers of Intervention for some excellent advice about getting involved in other peoples' problems.