The Knock out Game that black males are now doing...

[sudden valley gunner]

Burden of proof is on the state (supposedly) so the state should prove there was no justification in using force.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Joe, you're making a lot of sense. But you are trying to 'thread the needle' in these arguments.

"A guy was killed..." <---as one poster said 1 or 10 deaths from this over the whole US is not an epidemic. We don't arm up at the beach to prevent shark attacks in the surf.

If a large bird attacks you, can you carry a handgun to fire and defeat this attack. Yes you can, but it will have about 1% effectiveness.

Using a firing solution for an attack by a random teenager who thinks it's a joke (and though thuggish really does not want to kill their target, just humiliate them and gain 'street cred') is STUPID, INEFFECTIVE and a poor use of your firearm.

In the 1 in 10,000 attacks where you can see it, deploy, shoot the kid as he hits you, have it on video, be declared innocent in court, stop these type of attacks in the future (since you won't have a bounty on your head for a 'KO', being made infamous in the news, right?) you're better off with another strategy...or maybe ignoring the whole darn thing, because it's RARE. If it's not rare where you are MOVE.

I don't mean to be sarcastic, or not humor you. But just because you CAN do something doesn't mean it's prudent.

FWIW

The problem besides being rare with shooting in these attacks, it just does not make any common sense. If you have been struck by a strong young man I doubt most people have the sense to draw, acquire a sight picture, and take a shot. Besides the fact that taking the shot after the fact means prison. In these type of attacks, though rare, there is NO way to predict most of them. It is like that misrepresentation of the Tueller drill, it is not about shooting and shooting faster. It is about SA, and not getting in a spot if possible where a person can be taken advantage of. It is to demonstrate that a handgun is useless in some attacks, it amazes me that people miss that.

I bring it up because knockout is a rush attack with a fist, instead of a knife. If still conscious the best thing to do is protect yourself the best way possible, if the attack continues and the opportunity arises then use the necessary force. In a case of a crowd that may mean pretending to be knocked out, until the attackers leave.

A lot of these attacks happen to people who are in the wrong place, or they walk with their head down not making eye contact with others. Other words acting like victims.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

T

A lot of these attacks happen to people who are in the wrong place, or they walk with their head down not making eye contact with others. Other words acting like victims.

+100 I have tried to emphasize this for years.

 

[Richieg150]

This post is purely racist.

There is no way that whites are not doing this.

It is called the knock out game and also called polar bear hunting. I have watched several reports on this, and as far as those went, the assailants were black males. That wasn't racist, that was reported facts. The race card wasn't mentioned until now, the liberal news media has kept quiet on these assaults, as noted by a detective in New York City. Although the Rev. Al Sharpton, has commented on them calling barbaric and that they needed to be stopped. If the race card would be removed from the deck, you would have to draw conclusions based on facts, good or bad, but at least it would be fact based, and not skewed by throwing in the race card.

 

[Freedom1Man]

It is called the knock out game and also called polar bear hunting. I have watched several reports on this, and as far as those went, the assailants were black males. That wasn't racist, that was reported facts. The race card wasn't mentioned until now, the liberal news media has kept quiet on these assaults, as noted by a detective in New York City. Although the Rev. Al Sharpton, has commented on them calling barbaric and that they needed to be stopped. If the race card would be removed from the deck, you would have to draw conclusions based on facts, good or bad, but at least it would be fact based, and not skewed by throwing in the race card.

I mentioned it because the media won't.

The emo-con was there to express the fact that it was in-fact only black males doing it and yet the media down plays the events. The other thing is that the media calls them "troubled youths" and not "black, (anything)". It was also a way to point out that the facts show that it's a racially driven game of hate.

 

[OC for ME]

You getting punched in the head may not be a felony.....check your local cop shop for details.

What would a off-duty cop do if his wife was punched in the head? That is a really good question.

 

[F350]

First the side note--and not applicable to this thread. Its just that I thought of it earlier and didn't have time to post it; now I'm reminded of it: The media, as usual, is making the world seem far more dangerous than it really is. There are some 150M adults in this country. And, we have what? ten reports of knock-out game injuries? There were 4 "knockout" attacks in Columbia MO before I went to Iraq in 2008. There was apparently one a week ago here in Western CO though not reported as such; hit from behind while sitting on a bus stop bench and not robbed. Perhaps the problem is the press not reporting the facts

I don't know that I would start crossing the street yet to avoid a small group of young adult males. NO, just groups of BLACK young males



Regarding shooting the puncher, the law is the law. Shooting the puncher after the single punch is probably illegal in your jurisdiction.

Lets face it. You have no way to see it coming; it catches you totally by surprise. What are you gonna do? Start shying away from every small group of young adult males?Again; just groups of minorities Some things in life you can't avoid. I lump this one in the same category as the thorough-planning mugger. Even Condition Yellow won't save you from the guy who sees you coming from two blocks away, who secretes himself into the alcove, laying his trap well to catch you off guard.

On the other hand, single punches intended to cause unconsciousness may well rise to to the point that you can legally apprehend and hold him for police. You can check out the law in your jurisdiction to see what sort of things are allowed for citizen's arrest whether you are the punchee or someone else like your brother walking beside you. For sure, a single punch that is intended to cause unconsciousness rises to grave bodily injury or death. An unconscious person bouncing his head off a curb, wall, or sidewalk can have seriious brain damage. Heck, the punch itself can break the orbital bone around the eye, detach a retina, or cause brain damage.

Yes the "out of the blue attack" is nearly impossible to defend against, but taking precautions can help, I don't try to pet a snarling dog assuming it won't bite.

 

[Kopis]

I was kind of wondering about this same situation. However, after i thought about it, these people perpetrating the knockout attacks are looking for victims that are not aware of their surroundings. People who are just sitting at a bus stop, walking with their head down, texting and generally not paying attention. I think if you just keep your head up, know who is around you and be aware of your surroundings you dramatically reduce your chance of being attacked like this.

They are also looking, riding around, passing by an area several times before selecting a victim. Seeing a car come by repeatedly with the occupants searching around would also be a clue that a possible attack is going to happen. If you notice them, they will notice you and look for someone else.

 

[Grapeshot]

Make sure your victim is facing you.

The common law elements of self-defense are four; be innocent of instigation, be in reasonable fear of bodily harm, use sufficient force only to deliver oneself from evil, and attempt to withdraw.
--snipped--

ETA much later: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill

Five (5) elements of self-defense - Left out the defendant must show that the threatened harm was imminent.

First, the defendant must prove that he reasonably believed that his act was necessary to defend himself. This defense is available even if it turns out that the defendant did not actually need to defend himself. As long as he reasonably believed that he needed to defend himself, he will be able to use this defense.


Second, the defendant must show that he reasonably believed that he was being threatened with physical harm.


Third, the defendant must show that the threatened harm was imminent.


Fourth, the defendant must show that he reasonably believed that the threatened harm was unlawful.


Fifth, the defendant must show that the threatened harm was of such a nature that it actually required the level of force that the defendant used.


Although these five elements must be proven in any instance in which the defendant claims self defense, one other element must be proven when the defendant has used deadly force on the victim. In such a situation, the defendant must additionally show that he reasonably believed that the other person was about to inflict death or serious bodily harm on him and that the deadly force he used in self defense was necessary to prevent the death or serious bodily harm with which he was threatened. See Beard v. United States, 158 U.S. 550 (1895).

http://nationalparalegal.edu/public...sp_files/criminalLaw/defenses/SelfDefense.asp

 

[BigDave]

Application of Self Defense varies from State to State, In Washington State once you claim self defense then the State must Prove Beyond A Reasonable Doubt that you did not act in Self Defense, the burden is upon them.
I'm not discarding what has been posted as to imminent threat of life or limb and the amount of force was reasonable and necessary but note in Washington State there is no duty to retreat.

 

[eye95]

Are the victims truly random? Or do they fit a predictable profile? If we know the profile of the victims, we can act in ways that keep us from fitting that profile. I'd be willing to bet that not one single victim was OC. If that is the case, then one way not to fit the profile would be to OC.

I believe that the victims are not random. "Random" is just a word that many use when an act is senseless and the observer cannot perceive the underlying, decidedly non-random, motivators. I don't thing the participants are random either. They could easily be profiled if the media and LE weren't hiding those details--for fear of profiling.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[chowda]

It is called the knock out game and also called polar bear hunting.

I don't know if I'll get this post deleted, or any other ones addressing the same issue as this is what happened in the wisconsin forum here, but....the blacks stomping/whacking a white has been going on for about 15 years, organized anyway in the areas I am experienced in.

OK, so I'll not say anything else as why? This post too may disappear for some strange reason......

 

[chowda]

Are the victims truly random? Or do they fit a predictable profile?

Yes, they are random as they as the attack isn't planned for that individual. The only common characteristic is there are black attackers and the victim is white. Everyone else can fill in whatever blanks they want.

 

[eye95]

If only whites are being attacked, then someone, at some point in time, is making a decision to hit this guy and not that guy. Maybe the details of the decision were not made before the thugs left the house, but they had a plan in mind. I'd be willing to bet that there are a few other features the victims all have in common. I'd bet none had a visible firearm. I'd bet none were over 6'2", 275. I'd bet none were obviously and constantly noting their surroundings.

That ain't random. That is profiling. Profiling can be beat. Random can't.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[Primus]

You getting punched in the head may not be a felony.....check your local cop shop for details.

What would a off-duty cop do if his wife was punched in the head? That is a really good question.

Just getting punched in the head in MA is a simple misdemeanor and not even arrestable in the past. All we can do is issue a summons unless it occurs in our presence. If it happened to my wife they would promptly be placed under arrest.

Obviously it varies by states and you nailed it by saying check with local law. Just figured I'd throw an example of both things you posed.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[OC for ME]

The last thing I would be worried about would be arresting a perp after my wife hits the ground. Herself and her well being is my number one priority. Tending to her and defending against further attacks is my priority, not arresting the perp.....though, I cannot arrest anyone.

 

[scouser]

Apparently there is now a case being pursued as a racial hate crime. Have a guess what makes this attack different from the ones that haven't been labeled as hate crimes.

The Obama administration filed a federal hate-crimes charge Thursday against a man whom authorities accused of using the “knockout game” to target a black man, videotaping it, and then bragging about the assault to strangers.

The charge marks the first time the administration has taken action on a “knockout” case after the game became an Internet and media phenomenon. It chose a case in which the person accused is white, even though most other cases reported in the news have involved black assailants.

In this case, the man accused is 27-year-old Conrad Alvin Barrett, who the Justice Department says attacked a 79-year-old black man in Fulshear, Texas, just west of Houston. Justice Department officials said they brought the case to make a point about hate crimes. [snip]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/26/federal-authorities-charge-white-knockout-suspect-/

 

[eye95]

There should be no such thing as a "hate crime." All that should matter is the act. The thinking--even hate--should not be criminalized.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[Primus]

There should be no such thing as a "hate crime." All that should matter is the act. The thinking--even hate--should not be criminalized.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

I have to respectfully disagree eye. Something done with malice or hate I worse in my opinion. If I punch someone in the face because they mad me mad oh well there is a charge for that. But to hate someone so much you attack them based on said hate is worse.

It shoulsbt be the thought. You can hate whoever you want. But if you hate or target and then act upon said gate its almost like a premeditation that gets attached.

I've never dealt with hate crimes between ethnicities but I've been involved with it when it comes to sexual orientation. A male was targeted for being gay and got stomped for it. He was charged accordingly because the only reason he was attacked is because he was gay.

Again this is just opinion.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Grapeshot]

Feds charge man with hate crime in first knockout prosecution.

http://conservativebyte.com/2013/12/feds-charge-white-man-hate-crime-first-knockout-prosecution/

IMHO the crime should stand alone + race is irrelevant.