Wauwatosa man beaten by three teenage girls

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42793081/ns/local_news-milwaukee_wi/

http://www.fox6now.com/news/witi-20110427-teen-girls-beating,0,2512261.story

Had "Steve" been carrying, would he have been justified using deadly force?

He never should have exited his car. Could have safely called 911 from inside and not endangered his mother or son.

Headline for me would have read; 3 girls assault older male, he draws his gun, and they scatter. But i would have been innocent of instigation, and not made any comment to those thug females, nor gotten out of my car to confront them, so i guess my scenario would have never happened (?)

i would not have gotten out of the car and just simply drove away while calling the police to report it i will agree with handy and MCX never would of happened

on a side note i wonder if they would of even confronted him if he was OCing

First of all, Steve was not in his car when this started.

It was Saturday evening when he, his 14-year old son, and his 84-year old mother were leaving the Bluemound Gardens restaurant. They noticed a group of teenage girls, ages 16 to 18, swearing and making a scene in the parking lot. Words were exchanged

Click to expand...

indicates that he was on his way back to his car when -

- he instigated the confrontation by saying something to the female youts* (probably about the caliber of their language)

- the female youts jumped him

- his son went back into the restaurant to call the cops, after having tried to convince Steve to keep his comments to himself

Seeing as how Steve (1) instigated the confrontation and (2) never retreated and declared he wanted no more [admittedly Virginia case law but a good indicator of how to stop being the instigator or a mutual combatant] I'd say he had very little to justify or excuse the use of deadly force. Nothing indicates that he was made defenseless or that the attack was so overwhelmingly violent. (And yes, I'm using hindsight here because the OP invited me to review the information and then decide.)

Yes, a lot of us are more than a tad bit upset by the foul mouths on some youts and others, and have a hard time keeping out pie holes shut and refraining from sharing our opinion that those foul-mouthed boors ought to ****. But the "correct" thing to do is to call the cops and complain about the behavior in the hopes that the cops will arrive in time to hear them and arrest them for whatever law there is on the books against such behavior (disturbing the peace, public cursing, disturbing the Sabbath, etc.). And it helps to do that sotto voce so as not to give the foul-mouthed youts an excuse to "discuss" the matter with you. Having an audio recorder - or better yet an audiovidio recorder - would be helpful when/if the cops show up.

In other words, discretion and the rest of that saying. At times it is in fact the better way.

stay safe.

Lets not forget he was jumped after...

Then Steve did something his teenage son warned him not to do, he got out of the car, and offered the girl his handkerchief. "I was holding it out to her, I said 'Here, you can wipe that off now'...(she replied) '$%# no."

Click to expand...

The question of whether deadly force was justified will be a decision made by the police, THE MEDIA, then the DA, and then perhaps a jury.

Given that even if a jury would find your use of force justified, you will go through an experience no one would ever want to go through to get there.... (financial ruin)

Given that EVEN people who were never arrested and never charged suggest that using deadly force was an experience they would never want to go through again (court of public opinion)

The question we should all be asking ourselves when we think of situations and scenario's is NOT whether deadly force would be justified. It is whether deadly force can be avoided and to avoid ALL conflict whenever possible.

The judgment of whether the use of deadly force was justified will be arbitrary. One jury may find one way, one jury another. A DA in Milwaukee may decide to charge what a DA in Waukesha would not.

The whole "armed society is a polite society" isn't true because you get to shoot someone who is rude to you.... Its true because when you are armed, you know its BETTER to let someone be rude to you than instigate an armed conflict. And as such you avoid conflict at all costs. Every conflict you have, verbal or otherwise, is an armed conflict if you are armed.

I don't know what a jury would decide about this guy's case.

I don't know what a DA would decide about this guy's case.

I DO KNOW that whatever would be decided, if it were me, and I were ARMED OR NOT, I'd NEVER engage a bunch of punk kids. If they are enough of a bunch of punks to be shouting obscenities in a parking lot, they aren't going to listen to a reasonable person asking them to stop.

What the hell was this guy thinking engaging a bunch of punk kids? Did he think they would all say "hey, that guy is right, we are acting like hooligans" and apologize?

Get real.

This guy was STUPID. Perhaps dumber than the thugs that beat on him. He knew better, they probably didn't. He has something to lose going to jail, they probably don't.

Unless these thugs were actively putting someone else's life/safety in danger, he should have got in his car and called police as he drove away. If they spit on his car he could have had the last laugh when the police were stuffing them in the back of a squad car for disorderly conduct.

Obviously the man didn't receive anything more than bumps and bruises due to the altercation so it would be hard to claim he was in fear of "imminent death or great bodily harm."

Running Wolf said:

Obviously the man didn't receive anything more than bumps and bruises due to the altercation so it would be hard to claim he was in fear of "imminent death or great bodily harm."

Click to expand...

At what point during the incident do you have to make the decision i fear imminent death or great bodily harm?

Before or after you get hit in the melon with a brick?

I agree with McX,

All he would have had to do is draw and they would have scattered. Then again, if he was openly carrying, I am sure that this would have never gotten that far.

Three punks beating on you can easily be enough for someone to be scared for their life. I mean you don't know what they are capable of, you're outnumbered, and what happens if they were to knock you down? Plenty of people that fall down in these gang beatings get kicked and stomped on, and all it would have taken is one of the girls to trip you and good luck trying to recover.

I don't agree with him confronting them like that, but being jumped by three people is easy enough to be scared of grievous bodily harm as you don't know what the gang will do to a single person and if the mob mentality will take over where they won't stop beating someone until the person is seriously hurt, dead, or someone else stops them.

So confronting is bad, but 3v1 is also bad. And hindsight is always 20/20 so you need to look at what information was available at the time.

There isnt enough there to use deadly force...but that doesnt mean
you still cant defend yourself.

Great Spirit gave us 2 hands and 2 feet for a reason.

LR Yote

Lets just say I wouldn't be sad if he did use deadly force. He wasn't smart with the way he handled it, but that doesn't mean he deserved a beating or should just lay there and take the beating.

Our laws are out of whack in terms of self defense. This guy would have probably gone to prison if he chose not to be a victim. How sad.

LR Yote 312 said:

Great Spirit gave us 2 hands and 2 feet for a reason.

LR Yote

Click to expand...

And 3 or 4 tons of gas petal.

HandyHamlet said:

And 3 or 4 tons of gas petal.

Click to expand...

I handled some bully's in high-school that way. A 1966 Ford Galaxy 500 makes a great equalizer. Several large football players were going to kick my arse. I made it to the car and turned the tables on them. Never had a problem after that.

tomm1963 said:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42793081/ns/local_news-milwaukee_wi/

http://www.fox6now.com/news/witi-20110427-teen-girls-beating,0,2512261.story

Had "Steve" been carrying, would he have been justified using deadly force?

Click to expand...

NO

Outdoorsman1

That poor man is still under the delusion that other kids will behave properly (in a socially-acceptable manner) if reminded of their manners by an adult.
His son obviously knows better, probably being in school with girls like those.

Reporting the girls to police, without confronting them, would be safest.
Having a video record (as the waitress did - quick thinking!) to show police would be great.

But I see many of us here complaining about the 'nanny state', where people don't do for themselves.
So where's that line?
Approach the girls, tell them their behaviour is unacceptable, shoo them away?
Or tell the police they're making a disturbance & let them handle it? (If they get there before the girls get tired of their game, and if they witness any of the disorderly conduct.)

I think someone OCing would not have been attacked, and might even have gotten the girls to leave.
Might I have put a hand on the grip? Yes, along with holding up a "stop" hand & telling them to stay away as I back off.
Don't have to draw, and in the news video I've seen I saw no reason to consider drawing.
Would I have hit back if attacked? Heck yeah. Quickly & effectively. 3 on 1, I don't care if they're "only" teens. (Late teens, from news reports.)

But I think the confidence of being able to handle the situation if it devolved would have made the girls pause, maybe reconsider their actions. Works with other criminals.

It would make me want to do some old fashioned butt whipping. But no to brandishing or using a firearm. If one of the thugs had a weapon, a gun, a brick, or a 2x4, then possibly drawing a weapon would be justified. But I cringe to think of appearing in court with the thugs looking like young Amish girls to the jury. I most likely would have drove away. And I would not have confronted them in the first place. No point.

No way...

Drive away. What does a 50 something guy have to prove to a bunch of punk girls anyway...? If you have the choice to pick your battles, this one should have been left alone.