Man defends himself with licensed gun may still face charges

Mods please move if this is in the wrong forum. Thanks.

At first this seemed an issue of violent crime verses the right of self defense but perhaps this is going to become another gun control issue. Not sure so you decide.

Man who defended himself with licensed gun may still face charges

A janitor who was held down and beaten with a baseball bat by three attackers in Milwaukee, Wisconsin may face formal charges for shooting and killing two of his assailants with the gun that he is legally allowed to carry.

On Wednesday afternoon, the currently unidentified maintenance worker was accosted by three young individuals while he was changing the locks at an apartment located in a rough area of Milwaukee. According to Fox6 News, the three assailants mistook the janitor for the building manager and attacked him over the fact that one of their friends was put on notice for eviction.

Two of the individuals held down the 39-year old man while a third one beat him with a baseball bat. The maintenance worker was able to free himself and fatally shoot two of the attackers with his concealed carry permitted gun.

The janitor, unnamed by Milwaukee news outlets, was released without charges Friday, but authorities are still investigating the shooting, and the man may still face charges in the future, despite the apparent evidence that he acted in self-defense.

Now I don't know about anyone else but if three people attacked me and were beating me with a bat I'd shoot back in self defense. Families of the victims (who were shot not bat beaten) are taking a soft stance at the moment as it appears there is video of the incident and police are reviewing it.

Original article

One could argue that the attackers were just going to rough him up, maybe break a few bones at worst. So without intent to kill him, he was the one who pushed the envelop to something fatal. Now, to anyone that would argue that, there remains the argument that police consistently fire when there is even less of a threat to their livelihood, and it all ends up justified.

Also, that if people who are trying to solve things with violence, there is always someone more violent or someone that may have a CCW, and perhaps this will teach some of people who know the instigators a lesson. Not to mention 3 attackers against one person, assaulting with a baseball bat would probably seem like dire circumstances at the time. Self defence, no question. Also taught the remaining one a lesson.

Live by the sword die by the sword.

As far as the legal case goes, 3 people beating you up with a baseball bat seems entirely justified no matter what you did to stop them.

reply to post by Bassago

Two of the individuals held down the 39-year old man while a third one beat him with a baseball bat. The maintenance worker was able to free himself and fatally shoot two of the attackers with his concealed carry permitted gun.

Good for him.

If true and it went down as written I see no reason to prosecute this man. At what point does self defense with a hand gun not become glaringly obvious to some?

Two guys holding him and down while a third beats him with a bat pfft. Had any one of my grown loved ones witness that happening to me or me to them there would have been a similar outcome. Or at least a few cracked skulls/ribs etc...

Dont see a problem here. He was right to defend himself.

reply to post by Bassago


I would bet he's cleared. Especially if there is video. Milwaukee County's Sheriff has basically told everybody who can legally carry to do so already. It's in their own best interest. It's pure hell on the back and knees to carry a cop around.

It depends where you live and how idiotic the politicians are.

Looks legal to me.

On a side note I would have shot all 3.

reply to post by TDawgRex

It's pure hell on the back and knees to carry a cop around.

Apparently they gave it the old college try in Brazil.


Glad to hear the Sheriff's POV on this.

boncho
One could argue that the attackers were just going to rough him up, maybe break a few bones at worst. So without intent to kill him, he was the one who pushed the envelop to something fatal. Now, to anyone that would argue that, there remains the argument that police consistently fire when there is even less of a threat to their livelihood, and it all ends up justified.

Also, that if people who are trying to solve things with violence, there is always someone more violent or someone that may have a CCW, and perhaps this will teach some of people who know the instigators a lesson. Not to mention 3 attackers against one person, assaulting with a baseball bat would probably seem like dire circumstances at the time. Self defence, no question. Also taught the remaining one a lesson.

Live by the sword die by the sword.

As far as the legal case goes, 3 people beating you up with a baseball bat seems entirely justified no matter what you did to stop them.

edit on 14-3-2014 by boncho because: (no reason given)

Breaking a few bones would fall under "serious bodily injury". You can use lethal force to prevent serious bodily injury or death.
Firepiston

As a license holder, I wouldnt have hesitated to fire. The number of bad guys, and the bat, would have been enough.

There is something called "disparity of force". When size and opposite force and threat require like retalitory response.

*This from defenseivecarry.com

"Disparity of force" is one individual being unable to provide the same amount of force as the opponent due to physical capability.

Also, we learn while applying for our permits to carry that if you shoot someone, you can still be taken in cuffs, weapon confiscated and even sued by the offenders you shoot..even if justified.

And even if youre right in the decision to fire...it can easily cost you $$$ of dollars to clear yourself in trial...even in self-defense.

People dont understand the implication and responsibility of me deciding to fire and possibly kill someone.

reply to post by Bassago


Each to their own I suppose. Some people would shoot to kill, others like myself would just shoot to subdue. It would have to depend on the situation I suppose. If I thought people were intended to kill me - yes I probably would have no choice but to kill them.

The janitor on the otherhand managed to get away so obviously he could have held his ground and had a little stand off and shot them all in the legs 6 times, one for each leg. If they are STILL standing, shoot the other leg. There's no way they will up after that and it's off to the jailhouse.

So that's probably why they haven't decide on what charges they will be dealing with. People shouldn't technically shoot to kill unless absoluly nescessary and maybe it was for him. A licence to own a gun does not make a citizen Judge, Jury and Executioner.

Either way, I hope the Janitor doesn't get charged. He did the right thing defending himself and did what he had to do.

reply to post by TheProphetMark

People shouldn't technically shoot to kill unless absoluly nescessary and maybe it was for him. A licence to own a gun does not make a citizen Judge, Jury and Executioner.

Either way, I hope the Janitor doesn't get charged. He did the right thing defending himself and did what he had to do.

Don't think I agree with that first part. I was taught from the beginning if you have to use your gun for self defense shoot to kill. Leave the fancy trick shooting to the circus guys.

I hope he doesn't get any charges either.

reply to post by TheProphetMark


Sure because after beating him with a bat, his attackers would have stood around perfectly still and allowed him to carefully aim at their legs.

Reality check, in close quarters combat, you point at the largest part of the target that presents itself and unload on it. You don't aim through the sights carefully and you don't go for small fast moving targets.

TheProphetMark
reply to post by Bassago

 

The janitor on the otherhand managed to get away so obviously he could have held his ground and had a little stand off and shot them all in the legs 6 times, one for each leg. If they are STILL standing, shoot the other leg. There's no way they will up after that and it's off to the jailhouse.



Either way, I hope the Janitor doesn't get charged. He did the right thing defending himself and did what he had to do.

If you are defending yourself you never shoot to wound.
Shooting to wound would get you in more trouble then shooting to kill.

Shooting to wound would be turned around by a good lawyer in a law suit as you did not really fear for your life.

Any weapon use against you with deadly capability is cause for self defense. one guy with a bat is cause for a fitting of a body bag.

Three guys one with a bat is cause for three body bags. Anyone that survives deserves a long jail term where they will get beaten or becomes someone girl friend.

I was a federal security officer and that was how we were trained. Our training officers believed that taking a violent criminal off the street likely would save lives in the future like someones grand mother or kid. body bag or jail both worked.

reply to post by Bassago


Yes I agree with you on that one. When getting beaten with a baseball bat, you don't up the ante, lest they call your bluff with a bigger gun. You play your entire deck and hope they fold.

This whole story is being sensationalized. He shot somebody. At this point there are no charges filed, but it is still being investigated. That is what they are supposed to do. He is not being charged. He MAY still be charged if the story turns out to be something else through the investigation. Otherwise it will remain as is -- no charges filed. This is the way thing are supposed to happen. If you didn't investigate a shooting and simply believed everyone's story up front, all kinds of things might take place. This is just a story trying to further divide people.

I only have one question for this guy......


Why only 2 out of 3?? Feeling generous? Should have shot a clean sweep.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I dunno, I imagine the third guy after seeing his two buddies being blown away probably grabbed a quick knee and gave up, at that point had he shot then that would have been murder.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Or he hauled ass and was no longer a threat.

Kudos to the guy for exercising fire control. Don't kill what doesn't need to be killed.

In AZ, shooting anybody as they flee is a crime. So getting the clean sweep may not be possible. And it may be why there may be future charges for the janitor. Don't shoot anyone in the back. You can't be in fear for your life is the perp is fleeing.

reply to post by Bassago


Them saying "he man may still face charges" is true. "IF" his story turns out to be complete BS. I think that is a really big IF. If video shows he was the attacker or something along those lines. The guy who wasn't shot is probably telling an entirely dfferent story. IMO this is just an open case till they have all the evidence.

I shot a robber at a Circle K about 6 years ago with my CC even with video footage and witnesses until the police had a chance to go over it all I faced the "IF". I had to give them my pistol till it was all cleared and returned. Glad I had others.

Anyone could still face charges in a shooting "if" the evidence says they should. I think that is pretty much a standard position after a shooting.