• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

What would you do ? This is the worst thing I have ever seen ! You will be shocked

GLOCK21GB

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
4,347
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
Well Racial Hatred is gaining momentum but now it's Blacks attacking whites for no reason...YES it's a hate crime. Recently a disturbing trend has begun Black people are walking into Fast food restaurants & beating up WHITE patrons. You will call me a racist now I am sure..But as an open carrier What would you do if you a white person was eating a BigMac in a McDonalds & 4 Black guys came in & with no provocation started Beating the crap out of you, Kicking you when you were down, Yes, they are unarmed but you could be Killed, maybe one of them grabs a chair & starts hitting you with it......

This happened to the White Woman you are about to see, she was beaten so badly, she had a seizure .....

What would you do ? Draw ? Maybe the guys pick up chairs to crack your skull open !! IF THIS WOMAN WAS YOU WHAT WOULD YOU DO, but you were open carrying...What would you have done ?

Don't count on the McDonalds employees to come to your aid !!! ( I would sue McDonalds if this happen to me, I would own McDonalds after I was done ) The Idiots just stood & watched !

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ec0_1303444048

This Video is very Disturbing !!! If this continues to increase in frequency...Is a race war down the road ?

or do we have to wear OBAMA t-shirts when we go out to eat now :(
 
Last edited:

1FASTC4

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Messages
505
Location
Tomahawk
I would have drawn and fired. The red head was suffering grievous bodily harm.

Eric Holder will be along shortly to tell you this wasn't racially motivated; that this isn't a hate crime.
In fact, he will declare that you are racist for suggesting it's racist.
 

Nutczak

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Messages
2,165
Location
The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
This is the reason I avoid businesses that tend to attract customers of that class.

I am not saying it is a racial thing, but if a restaurant attracts people with their $0.99 specials, you typically will not find me there due to the class of people who are drawn by those specials.
 

Cobra469

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2010
Messages
218
Location
West Allis, WI, , USA
I don't think I would have drawn but I would have ushered her behind the counter to a safe zone and blocked them from getting through. Worse case I would have blockaded her in the bathroom keeping the assailants out while 911 was called. If they managed to get through then I would have already met the retreat obligation and would have to reassess whether more force would be necessary. That manager should have helped secure her and whoever was holding the camera should be charged as an accessory. Doing nothing to help is one thing but encouraging people to flee...I would sue that McDonalds. Did you see the massive chunks of hair on the floor? And the manager not once leaned down to check on the woman and see if she needed medical help. Regardless if race had anything to do with this it is a sad story.
 

GlockMeisterG21

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
637
Location
Pewaukee, Wisconsin, USA
IANAL

My thinking is this. If attacked by an unarmed man/group it is fair to assume that if you do not do everything you can, including using lethal force, they will take your gun from your lifeless/unconscious body and kill you and/or others. This gives you all the justification you need under Wisconsin law to use lethal force.

It still looks extremely bad using lethal force on an unarmed individual/group but what is the alternative? If retreat is not an option then there is no alternative.

IANAL
 

comp45acp

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2006
Messages
383
Location
Watertown, WI, ,
I would have drawn and fired. The red head was suffering grievous bodily harm.

Eric Holder will be along shortly to tell you this wasn't racially motivated; that this isn't a hate crime.
In fact, he will declare that you are racist for suggesting it's racist.

If you fired in this situation you would very likely be going to prison. While reprehensible, there is no justification for the use of lethal force by a bystander. Less than lethal force would have done the job here.
 

G Man

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
12
Location
Colorao Springs, CO
Stop the situation obviously! It helps for people to train in hand to hand combat and rely on a firearm as a last resort. It could help you in court and in a situation like this should it arise. My wife and I are both skilled in hand to hand combat and firearms operation and both conceal and open carry. If it was my wife, who is around the same size of the victim shown, I can almost guarantee the other women would have been eating out of a straw without one round being fired.
 

AaronS

Regular Member
Joined
May 2, 2009
Messages
1,497
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
I would have drawn and fired. The red head was suffering grievous bodily harm.

Eric Holder will be along shortly to tell you this wasn't racially motivated; that this isn't a hate crime.
In fact, he will declare that you are racist for suggesting it's racist.

I am with you in this thought 100%.
If after I drew and told them to stop, they did not, I would have killed the next one that went after the victim. If the Perps. friend jumped in again, she would also be killed.
Never will this happen in front of me. I would not stand for it at all. Oh, and I am sure I would get jail time. I can live with that.

Not on my watch, not ever.
 

comp45acp

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2006
Messages
383
Location
Watertown, WI, ,
I am with you in this thought 100%.
If after I drew and told them to stop, they did not, I would have killed the next one that went after the victim. If the Perps. friend jumped in again, she would also be killed.
Never will this happen in front of me. I would not stand for it at all. Oh, and I am sure I would get jail time. I can live with that.

Not on my watch, not ever.

No offense meant here, but this type of statement is fuel for those who want mandated training. You couldn't be more wrong in your statements. I highly suggest that you ask the administrator to delete your post as you have stated on a public forum that you that will not only use lethal force in a questionable situation but that you will "kill" someone. You never shoot to "kill". You shoot only to stop the threat. If you ever have a defensive gun use, this will used against you.
 

1FASTC4

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Messages
505
Location
Tomahawk
If you fired in this situation you would very likely be going to prison. While reprehensible, there is no justification for the use of lethal force by a bystander. Less than lethal force would have done the job here.

I disagree. The law allows me to use deadly force in order to protect another from serious bodily harm.


939.48 - ANNOT.
A person may employ deadly force against another, if the person reasonably believes that force is necessary to protect a 3rd-person or one's self from imminent death or great bodily harm, without incurring civil liability for injury to the other. Clark v. Ziedonis, 513 F. 2d 79 (1975).
 
Last edited:

comp45acp

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2006
Messages
383
Location
Watertown, WI, ,
I disagree. The law allows me to use deadly force in order to protect another from serious bodily harm.

No, it doesn't. You have the right to use lethal force to defend your life, or the life of another, if you are reasonably in immediate fear of death or great bodily harm. Great Bodily Harm is a legal definition and you need to know what it is. It is a higher standard than serious bodily harm.
 

1FASTC4

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Messages
505
Location
Tomahawk
No, it doesn't. You have the right to use lethal force to defend your life, or the life of another, if you are reasonably in immediate fear of death or great bodily harm. Great Bodily Harm is a legal definition and you need to know what it is. It is a higher standard than serious bodily harm.

She suffered great bodily harm(seizures show significant brain injury). Good shoot




Wisconsin law defines great bodily harm as bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death, serious permanent disfigurement, or a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ, or other serious bodily injury.
 
Last edited:

Trip20

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2006
Messages
526
Location
Wausau Area
Ability, Opportunity and Jeopardy all exist.

Ability: Disparity of force is present as the "fight" is unfair. Any reasonable person can deduce that one of the participants (in this case, a group) could kill or permanently damage the victim even though no deadly weapon is present.

Opportunity: The assailants are actively participating in the assault.

Jeopardy: Again, due to the active assault, jeopardy is imminent.


With the three parameters above meeting the Reasonable Person standard, deadly force is justified.

Just my opinion.... I'm no lawyer, but I do have a conscience.
 

AaronS

Regular Member
Joined
May 2, 2009
Messages
1,497
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
No offense meant here, but this type of statement is fuel for those who want mandated training. You couldn't be more wrong in your statements. I highly suggest that you ask the administrator to delete your post as you have stated on a public forum that you that will not only use lethal force in a questionable situation but that you will "kill" someone. You never shoot to "kill". You shoot only to stop the threat. If you ever have a defensive gun use, this will used against you.

I understand your point, I really do. And, I would even go as far as thanking you for looking out for my well being.

But. As far as I can tell, this victim was just about killed by two mad women. At the end of that video, I am not even sure that she did live through it. She was left on the floor convulsing. Did she live? Is she going to be ok, ever again?
No, I do understand your warning, but I have to stand by my words. I would have done my best to stop it with out the use of the gun, but it looks to me that I would then become the new victim (I am a small person). No way in the world am I going to just let two people larger then me beat me so bad I might die, if I have the tool to stop it.
I understand that the word KILL on a gun forum is not the best idea, but, watch that video again. I can not watch it a second time. It makes me sick.
I said it once, and I say it again. That victim was just about killed (did she live?). I feel it would have been my duty to stop it, any way needed.
I am not able to just let someone die in front of me if I am able to stop it.
 

anmut

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2010
Messages
875
Location
Stevens Point WI, ,
What should make you more angry is that this Black on White Violence isn't being covered.... BY ANYONE. Where is Al Sharpton or NAACP or the New Black Panthers crying for justice? Oh wait - that's right they are all RACIST groups.

As of this post I can't find one single reference on ABC's, NBC's, CBS's, FOX or CNN. Thank God for Matt Drudge.
 

GLOCK21GB

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
4,347
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
I agree whole heartdly with IFASTC4 , apierce918, AaronS , TRIP20 & ANMUT

Evil flourishes when good men or women do nothing. I would give my life or my freedom to protect another from serious harm or death, That's what being a good Samaritan means...Sticking up for those that can't defend themselves. I not only would have defended her but I would have been a witness for her lawsuit against McDonalds.

If this would have happened to me. A. I would have been sitting with my back to the wall, I am always on condition Orange ..I need to see who & what is going on in my AO. So, I would have seen them coming, ready to do (((( WHATEVER )))) the situation required, what ever the cost.


As of this post I can't find one single reference on ABC's, NBC's, CBS's, FOX or CNN. Thank God for Matt Drudge. THE LIB White guilt CONTROLLED media will never run a story like this as it would show the Truth
 
Last edited:

Claytron

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
402
Location
Maine
No offense meant here, but this type of statement is fuel for those who want mandated training. You couldn't be more wrong in your statements. I highly suggest that you ask the administrator to delete your post as you have stated on a public forum that you that will not only use lethal force in a questionable situation but that you will "kill" someone. You never shoot to "kill". You shoot only to stop the threat. If you ever have a defensive gun use, this will used against you.

Actually i believe you are incorrect here. You do NOT shoot except where deadly force is warranted. You should never fire off warning shots and you should never try to incapacitate someone with some one handed knee-cap shot. Firing a gun is using deadly force regardless of if the person dies or is injured. Whether or not you are "shooting to kill" or "shooting to stop" are philosophically irrelevant because you should ONLY be shooting (using deadly force) in a situation where you or someone else has also been presented with deadly force against them.

Civilians can legally use EQUAL or lesser force only, never greater. Police officers may use NECESSARY force, i.e. what they deem is necessary to stop the threat.

In this situation, regardless of the standard practice of using a firearm to protect yourself or someone else, I would draw and yell for them to stop and try to get their attention in hopes that they will see the firearm and run away. If they did not stop then i do feel a person would be justified in using deadly force against them to stop the attack. In my state of Maine you may use deadly force to stop the four following crimes: Murder, Arson, Rape and Kidnapping.

Four people against one person can easily be considered use of deadly force by the group. When you have a large number of people against a single person, the group becomes capable of deadly force regardless of if they are armed. In this case they beat her until she started to have seizures and this is a pretty clear sign that she is in danger of being crippled or even killed. Also in this situation because its males against a female, extra consideration is given to the female because she will statistically be physically smaller and weaker than the average male, this adds another level of danger.

If you sat back and called 911 and waited for police, her life would be in their hands. You really have no reason not to assume that this woman could be killed and for that reason i feel that deadly force would be justified. I would not fire a warning shot but i would try and draw their attention and hopefully frighten them away with the presence of the gun but this is risky because what if they have guns? A lot of people wouldnt agree with an attempt to scare them away but situationally thats what i would be comfortable with.
 

1FASTC4

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Messages
505
Location
Tomahawk
Actually i believe you are incorrect here. You do NOT shoot except where deadly force is warranted. You should never fire off warning shots and you should never try to incapacitate someone with some one handed knee-cap shot. Firing a gun is using deadly force regardless of if the person dies or is injured. Whether or not you are "shooting to kill" or "shooting to stop" are philosophically irrelevant because you should ONLY be shooting (using deadly force) in a situation where you or someone else has also been presented with deadly force against them.

Civilians can legally use EQUAL or lesser force only, never greater. Police officers may use NECESSARY force, i.e. what they deem is necessary to stop the threat.

In this situation, regardless of the standard practice of using a firearm to protect yourself or someone else, I would draw and yell for them to stop and try to get their attention in hopes that they will see the firearm and run away. If they did not stop then i do feel a person would be justified in using deadly force against them to stop the attack. In my state of Maine you may use deadly force to stop the four following crimes: Murder, Arson, Rape and Kidnapping.

Four people against one person can easily be considered use of deadly force by the group. When you have a large number of people against a single person, the group becomes capable of deadly force regardless of if they are armed. In this case they beat her until she started to have seizures and this is a pretty clear sign that she is in danger of being crippled or even killed. Also in this situation because its males against a female, extra consideration is given to the female because she will statistically be physically smaller and weaker than the average male, this adds another level of danger.

If you sat back and called 911 and waited for police, her life would be in their hands. You really have no reason not to assume that this woman could be killed and for that reason i feel that deadly force would be justified. I would not fire a warning shot but i would try and draw their attention and hopefully frighten them away with the presence of the gun but this is risky because what if they have guns? A lot of people wouldnt agree with an attempt to scare them away but situationally thats what i would be comfortable with.

In Wisconsin, you may use deadly force if you believe a person is going to suffer great bodily harm.

Wisconsin law defines great bodily harm as bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death, serious permanent disfigurement, or a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ, or other serious bodily injury.

She suffered great bodily harm. Deadly force justified.
 
Last edited:
Top