What woud have done in this situation?

[TnRebel]

Originally Posted by HootmonSccy

One Gun against 50 kids?? Hummm..
Here is my 1st thought..
I would say, if you pull it, you better empty it.. With that many people, there is a chance (a small chance) someone could take the gun from you (You cant shoot 15 people all coming at you at once). If you empty the clip, at least they can't use it against you and your family..
Sure if you get off the 1st shot, everyone backs away, you're good.. But if they don't back off.. You better be ready to empty it and hope none of the 50 are armed..

What are the chances out of 50 thugs, there is at least one gun????

My self I carry three mags loaded with 12 rounds each and one in the tube so if they are still coming after 37 rounds they can have my gun . even if one has a gun , I would bet they haven't had the field training I have .

[stumpjumper101]

I would have to say this sounds like gang activity to me. My few experiences with cleaning up after gang initiations have left a very distinct pattern embedded in my mind. I work in a small town 13 sq miles population 12,000 people 1% other than caucasion. until recently gang activity was nonexistant. a few years back just after midnight a young man was walking home from work when he was approched by 2 black men in a small car. they stopped and asked if he had any drugs. he replied no. next thing he knew was one had him with a gun to his head while the other stabbed him nine times. Obviously an attempt to kill him quietly, for obviously a initiation. while he was laying there with us medics working on him he describes this event to the police. their responce was yeah likely story you know who did this just tell us. later the police found out that the car used in the attack was stolen just minutes before and its owner was beaten and thrown in a dumpster for dead.
I personally after what i have seen them do to unsuspecting victims for no reason will draw and shoot first should somthing of this nature happen to me or my family. they may get the upper hand in their numbers but at least i will go out fighting knowing i tried to save my family and myself.

[kelcarry]

From the article I got really incensed when the quote from the police lieutenant was "we do not know if it was a gang or a group of kids"---is he kidding? A GROUP OF KIDS? It should have been a DEAD GROUP OF KIDS. If the husband had not yet been physically confronted by the group and was CC, he may have had a chance to do something but if there were 50 of them and they did not run after the first shot, he and his family would really have been in trouble. This does bring up a scenario that I try to think about when the perps are in your face and right next to you; I wonder what, if any, actual reaction I could take for self-protection--ie You are walking on the street in the evening with your wife and 2 or 3 fellows are coming toward you who do not profile in any way that cause me concern but once they are next to us they circle, get in my face, hold onto my wife, and ask the usual questions concerning money. I am CC but they are right next to us. I fail to see an "out" other than submittal and possible loss of my CCW, if searched. Let's assume they have not shown any weapon other than their presence and numbers. Any comments?

[melloyello]

Originally Posted by kelcarry

they circle, get in my face, hold onto my wife, and ask the usual questions concerning money. I am CC but they are right next to us. I fail to see an "out" other than submittal and possible loss of my CCW, if searched. Let's assume they have not shown any weapon other than their presence and numbers. Any comments?

My first comment is that you have no duty to retreat
- wait till you feel you are in imminent danger and see a weapon or they force their will (not uncomfortable)
- they have accosted your spouse
- your spouse cannot retreat
- retreat could mean surrender of your CCW
- retreat could mean increased danger to your spouse
- "Stand in the Shoes" doctrine (Defense of Others)

And as my friend tells me, better tried by twelve than carried by six.

I've been in two similar situations myself, but without my spouse.
A little background, I'm Vietnamese American and back then 5'8", ~160 lbs.

Once in downtown Atlanta where 2 men stopped me, another one about 2' behind them.
One grabbed my arm and the other blocked my path when I came off out of the metro.
The asked for money, spare change and I told them get off of me and out of my face.
Put my hand in my pocket and they backed off (don't know if they noticed or not).
Had this happen another time with my spouse but no one physically touched us.

Other situation was in a gas station store in North Georgia.
4 men surrounded me, blocked me from the counter as well as an exist.
Asked me what I was doing up here; looked them directly in the face and said hunting and camping.
They looked at my truck where I had a rifle in the gun rack (wife was there too).
They said cool and good luck and got out of my way.

Both situations I was very uncomfortable and intimidated, thought imminent danger, but saw no weapons or was forced against my will.

SLED is not the best source since they don't actively update their pages..
South Carolina Law Enforcement Division

9. you need not retreat “if to do so would apparently increase danger.” State v. McGee, 185 S.C. 184, 190, 193 S.E. 303, 306 (1937).

South Carolina has adopted the so-called “alter-ego” rule with respect to the defense of others. In State v. Cook, 78 S.C. 253, 59 S.E. 862 (1907), the Court summarized this rule:

If you intervene on behalf of another, you will not be allowed the benefit of the plea of self-defense, unless that plea would have been available to the person you assisted if he himself had done the killing.

In other words, the person intervening is deemed to “stand in the shoes” of the person on whose behalf he is intervening. If that individual “had the right to defend himself, then the intervening party is also protected by that right. If, however, the party [victim] had no right to use force…then the intervening party will also assume the liability of the person on whose behalf he interfered.” McAninch and Fairey, p. 494.

[ragifiro]

I registered just to respond to this post.

I don't have a 14 year old, I have a 2 year old. I would have drawn and fired. 50 vs.2 males, a wife and 2 small children? Seriously I fail to see the logic in anything else. There are so many scenarios that all end very badly. They got lucky in this case with all things considered.

Once the 1st guy was attacked the crowd apparently jumped on him and it just went downhill.

As far as a "possible hate" crime I think it is the failure to apply laws like this evenly that widens the racial divide. Had this attack occurred against another ethnicity (Arab, Jewish, etc) it would probably already have been labeled a hate crime.

"He was a good child" only goes so far these days. Children will take your life and those of your loved ones with very little forethought if placed in the right situation.