How many times would this guy have been shot here in Indy?

[Jack Burton]

I can't stop laughing at all the people who are trying to find ways to say that you can strangle someone with a garrote in self defense, and hence by shooting the guy with the garrote you somehow shot the wrong guy.

J... I can easily come up with a number of scenarios where I am defending my self with a garrote.

First, you've been assuming all along that the initial attacker, F, had the garrote which was used against B, and then taken away and reversed with B on the top using it against F.

It doesn't have to be set up that way. F could have attacked B in any number of ways without the garrote being initially present. B could have then defended himself in any number of ways, ending with pulling out the garrote and using it to subdue F after he gained the upper hand. (It's not important as to why B had one in the first place.)

Is it possible that B needed the garrote to actually subdue F? I can see this in several ways. F may be much bigger and stronger, or a better fighter. He may be on drugs and not going down easily. It's quite possible that B needed an equalizer and the garrote was the only thing available for him to use.

I am not necessarily disagreeing with your reaction to the scenario and what you would do... I am just saying that, in the end, there may be a lot more to it than that you are taking into account. Whether that comes back and bites you in the arse is a different question.

 

[Aaron1776]

I really don't have words for how stupid this would be to do in Indianapolis. Obviously verbal warnings would be the first option, but, depending on how out of it I thought the guy on bottom was, I might not have even hesitated to shoot the moron on top. Time is life!!
Not surprised at all by the people's reactions. A lot of people are just plain pussies without the resolve to get involved even if another's life is at stake. Kudos for the people who did get involved, though I'm certain by the reactions only the GI might have had a chance at actually stopping it.
Carry a gun.
Carry a knife.

 

[j706]

Wow that is some silly boys on the OP's post!! Not to smart IMO.

 

[jbombelli]

J... I can easily come up with a number of scenarios where I am defending my self with a garrote.

First, you've been assuming all along that the initial attacker, F, had the garrote which was used against B, and then taken away and reversed with B on the top using it against F.

It doesn't have to be set up that way. F could have attacked B in any number of ways without the garrote being initially present. B could have then defended himself in any number of ways, ending with pulling out the garrote and using it to subdue F after he gained the upper hand. (It's not important as to why B had one in the first place.)

Is it possible that B needed the garrote to actually subdue F? I can see this in several ways. F may be much bigger and stronger, or a better fighter. He may be on drugs and not going down easily. It's quite possible that B needed an equalizer and the garrote was the only thing available for him to use.

I am not necessarily disagreeing with your reaction to the scenario and what you would do... I am just saying that, in the end, there may be a lot more to it than that you are taking into account. Whether that comes back and bites you in the arse is a different question.

I just don't see it happening in a defensive way.

If you do force-on-force training at all... try it. The next time you're having someone attack you, try getting a garrote out and deploying it. Don't use a wire garrote, though ... use a bandanna or something that won't cut into the other guy's neck. Try it. See if you can get it out, wrap it around your wrists or put the handles in your hands, get behind the other guy at that kind of close range (i.e. take his back), and wrap it around his neck.

Personally, I have enough trouble drawing a pistol or a fixed blade knife, or a blackjack from a back pocket under stress. I can't imagine how hard it would be to try and go through all the motions necessary to deploy a garrote around the other guy's neck. Unless of course I'm a lot better than him, in which case I probably don't need it anyway.

 

[Jack Burton]

I just don't see it happening in a defensive way.

Hollywood has a hard time depicting reality because reality is often far stranger than any scriptwriter's imagination.

If it can happen... it probably will happen.

 

[Cheapdiesel]

I am going to try some garrote scenarios on Wed if there is a good defense or counter I will try to post a video. Might even see how feasible it is to draw a concealed weapon and deploy in time to keep from blacking out. should be interesting. If you have any request that are reasonable let me know I will subscribe to this tread I had no idea it would have this kind of legs.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Few key bulletpoints:

1) If strangulation is fatal is irrelevant in the discussion. "Fatal" doesn't play into the IC code. Serious Bodily Injury or a forcible felony does, and NO ONE has argued that strangulation isn't SBI or a forcible felony.

2) Just because other options are available, doesn't mean lethal force is illegal and the shooting would get you arrested. You are under no legal requirement to use the least amount of force or to use the best tactics. You are only required to use REASONABLE amounts of force.

3) You are only judged on what you could reasonably expect to know at the time. If someone jumps out of an alley, points a gun at you, and says "your dead!" and you shoot him...does it matter if it turns out to be an Airsoft gun? That your life was never in any real danger? That he was trying to pull a prank, mistook you for his friend, etc? No. It DOES NOT MATTER. You cannot be judged in hindsight, only by what a reasonable person would believe by what you could perceive at the time.

 

[actaeon277]

Few key bulletpoints:

1) If strangulation is fatal is irrelevant in the discussion. "Fatal" doesn't play into the IC code. Serious Bodily Injury or a forcible felony does, and NO ONE has argued that strangulation isn't SBI or a forcible felony.

2) Just because other options are available, doesn't mean lethal force is illegal and the shooting would get you arrested. You are under no legal requirement to use the least amount of force or to use the best tactics. You are only required to use REASONABLE amounts of force.

3) You are only judged on what you could reasonably expect to know at the time. If someone jumps out of an alley, points a gun at you, and says "your dead!" and you shoot him...does it matter if it turns out to be an Airsoft gun? That your life was never in any real danger? That he was trying to pull a prank, mistook you for his friend, etc? No. It DOES NOT MATTER. You cannot be judged in hindsight, only by what a reasonable person would believe by what you could perceive at the time.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

It doesn't have to be set up that way. F could have attacked B in any number of ways without the garrote being initially present. B could have then defended himself in any number of ways, ending with pulling out the garrote and using it to subdue F after he gained the upper hand.

Do you know anyone who carries a garrote? Ever heard of anyone carrying one for defense? Know of a single event where a garrote was used in self defense? Who, exactly, would carry one as a defensive weapon? And have time to deploy it, this isn't as quick as deploying a gun or knife? And who knew about garrotes but didn't know that a rear naked choke/LA choke hold is faster and just as effective in subduing someone? And managed to get behind the person and loop something over their head while the fight was still ongoing? And was still holding it while the person was no longer moving?

Impossible? No, but so incredibly improbable as to be well outside the realm of "reasonable".

 

[Jack Burton]

Do you know anyone who carries a garrote? Ever heard of anyone carrying one for defense? Know of a single event where a garrote was used in self defense? Who, exactly, would carry one as a defensive weapon? And have time to deploy it, this isn't as quick as deploying a gun or knife? And who knew about garrotes but didn't know that a rear naked choke/LA choke hold is faster and just as effective in subduing someone? And managed to get behind the person and loop something over their head while the fight was still ongoing? And was still holding it while the person was no longer moving?

Impossible? No, but so incredibly improbable as to be well outside the realm of "reasonable".

Unreasonable things happen every day.

 

[heofon]

Few key bulletpoints:

1) If strangulation is fatal is irrelevant in the discussion. "Fatal" doesn't play into the IC code. Serious Bodily Injury or a forcible felony does, and NO ONE has argued that strangulation isn't SBI or a forcible felony.

2) Just because other options are available, doesn't mean lethal force is illegal and the shooting would get you arrested. You are under no legal requirement to use the least amount of force or to use the best tactics. You are only required to use REASONABLE amounts of force.

3) You are only judged on what you could reasonably expect to know at the time. If someone jumps out of an alley, points a gun at you, and says "your dead!" and you shoot him...does it matter if it turns out to be an Airsoft gun? That your life was never in any real danger? That he was trying to pull a prank, mistook you for his friend, etc? No. It DOES NOT MATTER. You cannot be judged in hindsight, only by what a reasonable person would believe by what you could perceive at the time.

Good points. Well stated.

 

[7urtle]

I just don't see it happening in a defensive way.

If you do force-on-force training at all... try it. The next time you're having someone attack you, try getting a garrote out and deploying it. Don't use a wire garrote, though ... use a bandanna or something that won't cut into the other guy's neck. Try it. See if you can get it out, wrap it around your wrists or put the handles in your hands, get behind the other guy at that kind of close range (i.e. take his back), and wrap it around his neck.

Personally, I have enough trouble drawing a pistol or a fixed blade knife, or a blackjack from a back pocket under stress. I can't imagine how hard it would be to try and go through all the motions necessary to deploy a garrote around the other guy's neck. Unless of course I'm a lot better than him, in which case I probably don't need it anyway.

ive seen a drunken fight where 1 guy was face down on ground and another behind him. guy on top took his belt off to choke him. guy on top was significantly bigger tho.

 

[jbombelli]

ive seen a drunken fight where 1 guy was face down on ground and another behind him. guy on top took his belt off to choke him. guy on top was significantly bigger tho.

He had the best of him already, before he took the belt off to choke him. It's not self defense at that point. That crosses the line into bad guy land.

 

[ModernGunner]

Near as I can figure from watching the clip, based on situations I've actually been in:

1) Kick to the 'attacker's' face.
2) Hit the 'Stop / Alarm' button to keep door open.
3) Drawn weapon.
4) Assess if kick had desired result.
5) If the 'attacker' had not ceased at that point, further options are available, including lethal force. Not likely I would take further physical action beyond the first kick to stop the 'attack'.

Since I'm wearing a gun, I'm not about to get embroiled in some three-way wrestling match, and potentially become disarmed. And they COULD be faking an attack as a ruse to set-up and ACTUALLY attack the passerby trying to assist.

As noted elsewhere, one is justified in taking action, including the use of lethal force, based on the "reasonable and prudent man theory".

Those two clowns INTENDED that any reasonable and prudent person walking in to the situation believe an actual murder attempt was in progress.

After the 'attack' has been halted, BOTH guys are staying face down in that elevator until the Police arrive, and the Police can sort out what's going on. NEITHER of them are getting up and walking away with some lame 'explanation' that it's a stunt at that point. That's for the Police to determine.

As for the British guy in the café, he INTENDED for people to believe he had a gun, ordering people to the ground and his hand under his shirt giving the 'appearance' of having a gun. Drawing and firing in that situation would have been justifiable. The fact that he did not have a gun is irrelevant, at least here.

 

[augdog]

Maybe A swift kick in the groin

 

[cschwanz]

Step up and kick him right the face. Then take a step back to figure out if further action would be needed.

What a stupid experiment to do though. They got the reactions they wanted. A few people jumped right in, a few people screamed and a few others just walked away like nothing was out of the ordinary. They are super lucky no one took to them with serious violence of any kind tho...