3-against-1, victim wins with concealed firearm.

[Atypical Liberal]

http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/victim_to_muggers_say_hi_to_/id_38752


"At State and Wall, three young men walked toward him. He stepped to the left. One of the young men punched him in the head; the two others surrounded him.

The initial attacker punched him again with a closed fist.

Kruse was able to push him back. Then Kruse reached for his waistband. He pointed the gun at them. He didn’t speak.

“I just pulled the gun. They all scattered,” Kruse said in an interview Monday."

Anyone who is against concealed carry of firearms is saying that in cases like this the victim, outnumbered 3-to-1, should be left with no other option than to engage in a contest of physical strength against his attackers to resist them.

[DWC]

1. Another successful defense. No shots fired! n/t

[ileus]

2. another story of success...thanks for sharing.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Glassunion]

4. More NRA/GOP/TEA Party Douchebaggery...

Keeping a person from his beer and sushi. They must have had a death wish.

How tacky and uncivilized of him to take a gun out of his home.

[Common Sense Party]

5. He brought the attack on himself.

He chose to walk down the same street where those ruffians--er, nice young boys were perambulating.

Presumably, he had money on him, in order to purchase his sushi.

He was just asking for it.

[iverglas]

6. oh well, one mustn't disappoint

If he'd reached for his waistband and pulled out his wallet, what would have happened then?

If they hadn't "scattered", what would have happened then?

How many of you can hit three people with that three-shot manoeuvre? How many of you aim well when the two you didn't hit have knocked you to the ground and are pummelling and kicking you?

You'll take your chances? Yeah, and the chances of anybody in the vicinity if things don't go down exactly as pictured and you do pull that trigger in a situation like that ...

[Blown330]

7. Oh waaahh...

Nothing but more "what ifs" from you. You fail to understand a very basic premise of criminal: vast majority are cowards. If they hadn't been smart enough to scatter, one or two of them would be dead or seriously injured. Always blaming the victim, can only imagine what kind of life you must live.

[iverglas]

9. well do tell

Always blaming the victim, can only imagine what kind of life you must live.

What kind of life prompts someone to make such consistently false and nasty claims about other people?

Nah, that's not what I wanted to know. I don't actually give a shit.

What is this life of mine that you imagine?

[Blown330]

14. Why don't you tell us?

Since you don't hesitate to insult or make false claims yourself. You insult, have your posts deleted, then complain about others insulting you...seems to be a pattern. For someone who keeps saying they don't give a shit you certainly put a lot of effort into butting in where you aren't wanted.

[iverglas]

16. snork

Just: snork.

[rl6214]

34. Seems I wasn't the only one to observie this about her.

[rl6214]

33. You are the one always doing it, you tells us"

"What kind of life prompts someone to make such consistently false and nasty claims about other people?"

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

30. and this one will be deleted too

because you are once again violating the rules. Will no one do this bigoted moron a favour and send him a PM explaining this to him? Putting someone "on ignore" is juvenile but it's your choice. You live with it. You IGNORE the person you have chosen to ignore. Period.

[Atypical Liberal]

8. Submit if you like.

If he'd reached for his waistband and pulled out his wallet, what would have happened then?

Then he would have submitted to his attackers. Submission is always an option if you are unarmed. An unarmed person faced with violent assailants can run if they are fast enough, submit if they can survive submission, or engage in a physical contest of strength with their attackers.

People deserve to be able to fight back against those who would do them harm, and they should not be forced to resort to a physical contest of strength to do so.

But we don't even know that his attackers wanted his wallet. Maybe they just wanted to beat the shit out of someone that night.

If they hadn't "scattered", what would have happened then?

Then the outnumbered, already beaten victim would have had the opportunity to defend himself with something more than his body.

How many of you can hit three people with that three-shot manoeuvre? How many of you aim well when the two you didn't hit have knocked you to the ground and are pummelling and kicking you?

As we have just seen, criminals have a funny way of running away when faced with a victim with a gun. When the victim starts shooting, I bet they move even quicker.

But even if they didn't, people deserve the right to fight back against their attackers without having to resort to a physical contest of strength.

You'll take your chances? Yeah, and the chances of anybody in the vicinity if things don't go down exactly as pictured and you do pull that trigger in a situation like that ...

That's exactly right. And chances are, things will turn out OK, as they usually do. CCW permit holders cause less collateral damage than even police officers do.

But none of this really matters.

What matters is if you are against people carrying firearms for self-defense - for any reason, be it fear of criminal use of firearms, or fear of collateral damage when they are properly used - then you are in favor of people like Brandon Kruse having no other options than to flee, submit, or engage in a physical contest of strength with their attackers.

[iverglas]

10. oh, no, Paco! He would have been a coward, a craven coward!

Do not forsake me, oh, my darlin'
On this our wedding day.
Do not forsake me, oh, my darlin'
Wait, wait along

The noonday train will bring Frank Miller
If I'm a man I must be brave
And I must face that deadly killer
Or lie a coward, a craven coward
Or lie a coward in my grave.

Oh, to be torn 'twixt love and duty
S'posin' I lose my fair-eyed beauty
Look at that big hand move along
Nearin' high noon

He made a vow while in state's prison
That it would be my life or his'n
I'm not afraid of death, but oh
What will I do if you leave me

Do not forsake me, oh, my darlin'
You made that promise when we wed
Do not forsake me, oh, my darlin',
Although you're grievin'
I can't be leavin'
Until I shoot Frank Miller dead

Wait along, wait along...........
-- Ned Washington / Dimitri Tiomkin


It sure needed singin', didn't it?



If he'd reached for his waistband and pulled out his wallet, what would have happened then?
Then he would have submitted to his attackers.

And he never coulda showed his face in these parts again.


Who the hell is Brandon Kruse? Put another way: what disadvantaged/vulnerable group's misfortune are you exploiting today? (C'mon, it's better than even odds you aren't naming a straight while male person, but I could have bet wrong here.)

[Atypical Liberal]

11. Unable to parse.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

[iverglas]

13. but I was singing your song!

That a man should submit to criminals he perceives as a threat to his life and limb -- 'tis a cowardly thing to do and cannot be abided or even contemplated!

Do you really not know the theme song to High Noon?

[Atypical Liberal]

15. It is not cowardly to submit.

That a man should submit to criminals he perceives as a threat to his life and limb -- 'tis a cowardly thing to do and cannot be abided or even contemplated!

It's not necessarily cowardly to submit, it just should not be your only choice, nor should people be able to mandate it as the only choice for others.

Do you really not know the theme song to High Noon?

Nope. Just googled it. 1952 predates me by nearly 20 years.

[iverglas]

17. my question wasn't about "should" or "shouldn't"

It was: what would have happened if?


My mother was a big Gary Cooper fan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4a_1UhwgFU

The crib notes version. Watch a movie in 2:45.

The fiancée was a Quaker or some such peacenik.

[GreenStormCloud]

19. Fiancee also picked up a rifle to shoot one of the bad guys at the end of the movie. N/T

[NewMoonTherian]

26. If he had complied...

he'd be out the contents of his wallet, and still be at the mercy of three violent criminals. I didn't read anything in the linked story that said they demanded his wallet or anything else. They just started beating him. If they had left him alone after he handed over his possessions, they'd have then likely moved on to find someone else to victimize, either immediately or some other night.

In response to another post, Brandon Kruse, the victim, is a white male. No mention of his sexual orientation.

[iverglas]

29. hmm

If they had left him alone after he handed over his possessions, they'd have then likely moved on to find someone else to victimize, either immediately or some other night.

as compared to what they did do ... which was ... ?

[NewMoonTherian]

40. Well, you're partially right.

He held two of them at gunpoint until police arrived and arrested them. The other one did escape though - at least temporarily - before he was nabbed as well.

[petronius]

24. That was the message of High Noon? Someone should have told John Wayne; it

could have saved him a lot of angst... :shrug:

[GreenStormCloud]

35. John Wayne wasn't in it. Gary Cooper starred in it.

It was good drama but a horribly unrealistic movie. In the Old West there were tons of civil war veterans who would have backed up a town sherrif in such a situation. Nor would the sheriff have done a duel with the bad guy. A real sheriff of the period would have had a rifle and been behind cover.

I think I remember reading somewhere that John Wayne didn't like the movie because the sheriff thew his badge in the dust and stomped on it at the end.

[petronius]

36. I know - Wayne apparently disliked it because Marshall Kane wasn't 'manly' enough

Had the message of the movie actually been what the other poster seems to think, Wayne would have liked it very much...

(Of course, that wasn't Wayne's only source of dislike; the blacklisting context played a big role as well.)

[one-eyed fat man]

41. Accomodate the attacker?

The victim here had already been physically assaulted, apparently without provocation. Was there any reason he shouldn't expect more of the same?

You really think just give them what they want and rely on their good nature not to hurt you?

What if the crime in question had been rape?

Is your advice to just get up off that pussy?

[RSillsbee]

12. I've gone up against people armed w/ AKs and I'm still here NT

[ileus]

18. but you were super duper extra special Uncle Sam trained....we're just bums with hot pokers being

impolite by being toters in public, some of us even carry two or more bulging in our pants til they burst.

[oneshooter]

23. As have I. And in a lot of places you really don't like to be. n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

20. Bernard Goetz managed to shoot all four of his muggers.

At extreme close range, such as in that Kruse's encounter, precise aiming isn't needed. They don't call it "point-blank range" for nothing. Three shots can be fired in less than one second.

[iverglas]

21. it really is the gang that couldn't shoot straight around here, isn't it?

Bernard Goetz. The world's most famous vigilante. At least for his 15 minutes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Goetz

He surrendered to police nine days later and was eventually charged with attempted murder, assault, reckless endangerment, and several firearms offenses. A jury found him not guilty of all charges except an illegal firearms possession count, for which he served two-thirds of a one-year sentence. The incident has been cited as a contributing factor to the groundswell movement against urban crime and disorder, and successful National Rifle Association campaigns to loosen restrictions on the concealed carrying of firearms.

You all sure have a lot to thank this particular piece of crap for, don't you?

Goetz shot and seriously injured four people, one in the back and one while seated, in a subway car where there were other people, with absolutely clear intent not to defend himself, but to kill, planned and executed, if not entirely successfully.

Fish in a barrel, wasn't it?

[ManiacJoe]

25. Like the example or not, it does show the situation is possible to survive.

[GreenStormCloud]

27. The jury disagreed with you.

It was clear to the jury that he was about to be mugged and defended himself. The angle of the wounds established that he did not shoot one guy while he was seated. The people he shot were criminals. After the incident some of them went on to commit other serious crimes. They weren't choir boys. And he did get all four when they had him surrounded and were demanding money. All four of them were armed with stabbing weapons.

[iverglas]

28. gee, stop the presses.

The jury disagreed with me? Well, as I initially posted, the jury acquitted him. Period.

It was clear to the jury that he was about to be mugged and defended himself.

You have no clue what the jury agreed or disagreed with, or what was clear to the jury or not.

They weren't choir boys.

Neither are the people on the next block over from me. May I shoot them now?

And he did get all four when they had him surrounded and were demanding money. All four of them were armed with stabbing weapons.
And as I said:

"Speed is everything", Goetz said in a videotaped statement made after he surrendered nine days later. He told police that while still seated, he planned a "pattern of fire" from left to right. He then stood, stepped clear of Canty, drew his pistol, turned back to Canty and fired four shots, one at each man, then fired a fifth shot.

He was a vindictive vigilante who started shooting people according to a plan in alleged anticipation of an assault.

In the case under actual discussion here, someone scared off a batch of would-be assailants by showing a firearm. They weren't standing in a subway car with nowhere to go, and they weren't shot before they could even attempt to go. Goetz committed the attempted murders he was charged with, and everybody knew and knows it. But on the subject under discussion, his carefully planned and executed manoeuvre -- and good fortune that no one else was in the line of fire -- doesn't say much about how successful anyone else would be in facing a group of assailants in very different circumstances.

Some people, when you flash a firearm at them, aren't going to turn tail and run. And some situations involving multiple assailants and one gun toter aren't going to end well.

[GreenStormCloud]

31. And the jury cleared him.

The jurors has since talked to the media. They accepted that it was clear that he was about to be attacked. Even one of the muggers has since admitted that they were about to mug him. In a 4 on 1 situation speed of fire is essential - that is rather basic tactics. Planning one's defensive fire in the fact of imminent attack is not pre-meditated murder, it is simply sound tactics, and only takes about a second to do. In fact gun-fighting schools teach preplanned responses to various scenarios.

[iverglas]

37. gosh, you don't say

The jurors has since talked to the media. They accepted that it was clear that he was about to be attacked.

They acquitted him. So certainly you expected them to say "we're fed up and we aren't going to take it anymore and we don't give a shit who did what to whom we're sending a message right here right now". Yeah, that's what they would have done.

Planning one's defensive fire in the fact of imminent attack is not pre-meditated murder

And another round of beg-the-question begins ...

[spin]

38. Agreed. With practice that can be accomplished. (n/t)

[rl6214]

32. Yes, by all means give in to the nice young men

and trust that they won't beat you to death after you hand them your wallet because who knows, you might be able to identify them.

[PavePusher]

39. I'm under no moral obligation to give anyone my wallet without resistance. n/t