Shooting on Brookside

[Michael Brown]

The point of multiple attackers was something I was really hoping would be brought to bear in the Gumm case, where there were multiple "buddies" of the assailant.

This is an important point and one not sufficiently articulated by Gumm and his attorney.

Presence of another person may or may not equate to a second assailant and if a victim does not take an active part in his defense, it may never come to bear.

This is where training and education in recognizing pre-assault cues and precognition is important.

The victim's ability to articulate this can be the difference between a prosecution and the case being cleared as a justifiable homicide.

Again:

http://www.okshooters.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12516

Michael Brown

 

[Iwant1]

No offense, but in my opinion, these days, there is no such thing as a butt kickin'. Anyone who is willing to use physical violence against me in any form- solo, paired, gang, weapon or not, I am going to respond however I need to in order to guarantee my safety.

A punch or kick can easily lead to the same result as a hit from a bat or a bullet from an assailant's gun. If I get knocked unconscious, I am at the mercy of an attacker who may very well cause me severe bodily harm or even kill me as I lay defenseless. Thus, I feel I am justified in using deadly force if necessary to stave off even an unarmed attack from a single attacker if they attack me.

My thoughts exactly. Stand Your Ground does apply. Great Bodily harm COULD HAVE occured. You don't know what type of weapons they have or fighting skills. You are not required to retreat and do not have to be severely injured.

 

[Iwant1]

Updated story here... writing is obviously not the forte of the "journalist" that submitted this piece. It is a bit unclear.

http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=11878365

It doesn't sound like a 2 on 1 fight. If you read the testimony from the A. Million he's describing the story not only as he's watching, but he explains that someone pulled the choker off of Dan. Is this right? He had some help and it seems that other people where present. Don't situations like this usually draw a crowd pretty fast?

 

[trade_sniper]

From what I've read...and could have just as easily misunderstood, it sounds like he had shot the other guy first, then the second guy choked the shooter and/or kicked him in the face. I believe I read at least in two different stories where it sounded like after he shot the guy, the second guy continued to attack.

Again, we're all just getting bits and pieces, mostly provided by the media, all or part of which could be incorrect, so until the facts come out, we're all just guessing.

 

[Iwant1]

From what I've read...and could have just as easily misunderstood, it sounds like he had shot the other guy first, then the second guy choked the shooter and/or kicked him in the face. I believe I read at least in two different stories where it sounded like after he shot the guy, the second guy continued to attack.

Again, we're all just getting bits and pieces, mostly provided by the media, all or part of which could be incorrect, so until the facts come out, we're all just guessing.

If thats the case it says that he was white as a ghost(out of air) lips were busted, then why wasn't there a second person shot?

 

[Michael Brown]

If thats the case it says that he was white as a ghost(out of air) lips were busted, then why wasn't there a second person shot?

If you believe that you can simply shoot your way out of this type of problem, you would benefit greatly from some force on force training.

I will let those who have taken this type of training explain further rather than hearing it from the provider.

Michael Brown

 

[Iwant1]

If you believe that you can simply shoot your way out of this type of problem, you would benefit greatly from some force on force training.

I will let those who have taken this type of training explain further rather than hearing it from the provider.

Michael Brown

I am not siding with the shooter on his decision to shoot. If HE felt he needed to shoot the first person it seems that he would have a hard time explaining why he didn't shoot the second person.
We are jumping way outside the facts here I know. But you misunderstood my question.

 

[LightningCrash]

If thats the case it says that he was white as a ghost(out of air) lips were busted, then why wasn't there a second person shot?

After the first threat was addressed, it would appear the second one stood down.

 

[ttown]

"The one guy was still on top of Dan behind him, had him choked down on the ground and a friend of ours grabbed that guy, pulled him off of him," said Allen Million, Slo Ride Saloon Patron & Witness.

 

[Michael Brown]

I am not siding with the shooter on his decision to shoot. If HE felt he needed to shoot the first person it seems that he would have a hard time explaining why he didn't shoot the second person.
We are jumping way outside the facts here I know. But you misunderstood my question.

No, I think you misunderstood the answer.

Shooting someone who is actively fighting you is much more difficult than most gun people would have you believe.

The second person didn't get shot because he was kicking the crap out of the guy with the gun. I am confident the second person would have been shot if the shooter had been able to.

The decision to shoot seems appropriate legally. The shooter was jsut not able to get the job done on two people.

Ability to manage the scenario he was dealt was likely the reason only one person was shot.

Michael Brown