Youth Football Coach Beat by Crowd

[AWick]

Don't defend your life if you're a youth football coach and want to stay a youth football coach, apparently.

Amongst the crowd the wife shot into the air, then the coach retrieved a second handgun to defend himself. This would be an instance where a "warning shot" could be the correct action against a life threatening attack. If she was unable to get a clear shot at one of the guys beating her husband then a shot like that would be the only thing she could do.

http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article2032390.html

[Waltherfan]

Wife uses her gun to keep her husband from being beaten.
Husband (coach) retrieves his gun but doesn't fire it.
Both guns get confiscated by the po po. 

Coach gets fired.

What's wrong with this picture?

[DR4NRA]

Wife uses her gun to keep her husband from being beaten.
Husband (coach) retrieves his gun but doesn't fire it.
Both guns get confiscated by the po po. 

Coach gets fired.

What's wrong with this picture?

1. The bullet fired into the air has to come down. Dangerous and still possibly lethal.
2. Coach is in good enough shape to retrieve gun and brandish it at a Group of people, should have just locked himself in the car and trying to deescalate instead of escalating the situation.
3. Perps were relatives of boy and mother, should be easier for cops to find them.
4. Forrest Gump adage applies " stupid is as stupid does"

[JTH]

1. The bullet fired into the air has to come down. Dangerous and still possibly lethal.

True.  Should have been fired into the ground instead. 

2. Coach is in good enough shape to retrieve gun and brandish it at a Group of people, should have just locked himself in the car and trying to deescalate instead of escalating the situation.

So, the fact that a gun in the hands of an attacker had been brandished, another attacker had brass knuckles, and there was a GROUP of adults beating him----this is not sufficient for use of a gun in defense?

Instead, you would have him trap himself (and his wife?) in a car when 1) it is easy for people to break windows, tip over the car, etc, and 2) again, the attackers have a gun so that a trapped person who can't move makes an easy target?

Even more, you are saying that when a group of people attacks and beats you and has several weapons including a distance weapon---after they've been temporarily moved a slight distance away, you should attempt to somehow de-escalate the situation instead of making sure you are prepared for when they come back?

De-escalate AFTER they've already chosen to go physical in a group.   Hm.

Don't think I'd suggest that as a primary response.  Truthfully, sounds like (given the lack of details, so basing it only on the original link) the man and his wife made some good choices---in the air for the warning shot wasn't a good choice but most people don't know that, got a weapon to save himself and support his wife (good job), didn't shoot further as the assailants left the area (good choice).

I'm thinking that if he and his wife ran and had barricaded themselves in their car, they would have had their car smashed and themselves pulled from it and beaten.  And I think that if he had attempted to de-escalate the situation somehow instead of demonstrating that he was prepared to defend himself, the group would have rat-packed him and his wife, and it would have gone downhill from their.

I think those outcomes are MUCH more likely than either the car trap or de-escalation working out for him.

I find it amazing that this Burris guy says:  "It just sets a terrible example of coaching" and also "We pride ourselves on zero tolerance for anything that goes on."

Amazing lack of brain.

[Lorimor]

I find it amazing that this Burris guy says:  "It just sets a terrible example of coaching" and also "We pride ourselves on zero tolerance for anything that goes on."

Amazing lack of brain.

True.  We don't want kids defending themselves.  Can't have that.  Just let the bullies of the world have their way.  That makes for a nice, safe, non-violent, non-threatening civilized society.   The bigger, stronger, meaner among us get to dictate terms.  Always a good recipe for progress. 

[DR4NRA]

True.  Should have been fired into the ground instead. 


So, the fact that a gun in the hands of an attacker had been brandished, another attacker had brass knuckles, and there was a GROUP of adults beating him----this is not sufficient for u

se of a gun in defense?

Instead, you would have him trap himself (and his wife?) in a car when 1) it is easy for people to break windows, tip over the car, etc, and 2) again, the attackers have a gun so that a trapped person who can't move makes an easy target?

Even more, you are saying that when a group of people attacks and beats you and has several weapons including a distance weapon---after they've been temporarily moved a slight distance away, you should attempt to somehow de-escalate the situation instead of making sure you are prepared for when they come back?

De-escalate AFTER they've already chosen to go physical in a group.   Hm.

Don't think I'd suggest that as a primary response.  Truthfully, sounds like (given the lack of details, so basing it only on the original link) the man and his wife made some good choices---in the air for the warning shot wasn't a good choice but most people don't know that, got a weapon to save himself and support his wife (good job), didn't shoot further as the assailants left the area (good choice).

I'm thinking that if he and his wife ran and had barricaded themselves in their car, they would have had their car smashed and themselves pulled from it and beaten.  And I think that if he had attempted to de-escalate the situation somehow instead of demonstrating that he was prepared to defend himself, the group would have rat-packed him and his wife, and it would have gone downhill from their.

I think those outcomes are MUCH more likely than either the car trap or de-escalation working out for him.

I find it amazing that this Burris guy says:  "It just sets a terrible example of coaching" and also "We pride ourselves on zero tolerance for anything that goes on."

Amazing lack of brain.

1. Wife violated Kansa CC law by carrying at a athletic event. Big no-no.
2. It wold be more defensible if perps had followed, smashed windows and tried to pull them out. Bang bang you die. Or would you rather that by taking and brandishing a gun at a group that then pulled a weapon starts firing and shoots poor 10 year old Johnny football in the head. By your post it sounds to me that you would rather see innocent people put in harm way.

[JTH]

1. Wife violated Kansa CC law by carrying at a athletic event. Big no-no.

So---"practicing in Linwood Park" is considered an athletic event?

2. It wold be more defensible if perps had followed, smashed windows and tried to pull them out. Bang bang you die.

I'm thinking that "5 or 6 guys showing a weapon, using weapons, and beating me up then attacking in the face of my wife holding a firearm" is probably sufficiently defensible. 

Given use of force rules, the fact that they ALREADY have attacked in a group, plus the weapons, makes it a lethal force situation.  Now, if he had just started shooting when they stopped, that would be one thing.  But since he merely got his gun for potential self-defense use----yeah, perfectly legal.  And if he had to fire it because they continued to attack---ALSO perfectly defensible in court.

Or would you rather that by taking and brandishing a gun at a group that then pulled a weapon starts firing and shoots poor 10 year old Johnny football in the head. By your post it sounds to me that you would rather see innocent people put in harm way.

I'm thinking that apparently you have forgotten about the fact that innocent people are already in harm's way.  Or are we ignoring the guy getting beaten by a group of people? 

You seem to think that after making the group briefly stop beating the man, moving a small distance away and attempting to trap oneself will be effective self-defense.  I disagree.  (Especially since if they are breaking windows and shooting, I guess that Johnny Football will still be in danger, yes?)

I'm also curious if you think, after the initial beating and the warning shot, that all the parents kept their kids nearby to watch?

[ILoveCats]

I'm finding this discussion useful, but also intriguing.  Please allow me to move it from the realm of the “reality” (based on the news reports of this incident) to a “hypothetical”. 

If a similar situation happened in Nebraska, and the CHP holder – and his wife – were able to safely retreat to their car and safely/slowly drive away, then IN THAT CASE they’d be require to do so, right???  They are not in their home or place of business.  They have the ability to safely retreat and therefore have the duty to do so, even if some lard-butt a-hole has exposed his gun and roughed them up with brass knuckles, correct?

This is not to dismiss or undermine jthhapkido's substantial wisdom, because I deeply respect his point of view.  And I know I’m changing the situation here a bit to turn it into a hypothetical,  but I find hypotheticals a useful tool to delve down into the fundamental logic.

[Dan W]

If a similar situation happened in Nebraska, and the CHP holder – and his wife – were able to safely retreat to their car and safely/slowly drive away, then IN THAT CASE they’d be require to do so, right???

Only if they both KNEW that they could retreat in COMPLETE SAFETY would they be required to do so

[JTH]

Only if they both KNEW that they could retreat in COMPLETE SAFETY would they be required to do so

Yep.  That's the point that makes it hard to answer without knowing a lot more about the situation.  Did the guy get his gun from the car while his wife held them at gunpoint?  Was he dazed and unable to be effective in his own defense?  Did the attacker with a gun run, or was he in the back of the crowd?  Would the coach/wife have to turn their backs to get into the car?

If she fired a shot and most of the attackers ran off, and only a couple stayed to yell from the crowd, and the car was such that they could cover each other, get in, and get away---then it still wouldn't be a case where they "had" to do so before using lethal force...but it might be one in which it would be possible.  It would tend to get a lot of day-after-quarterbacking from us. 

Truthfully, I'm thinking that getting away from a group of attackers where at least one is armed with a distance weapon is----not easy.  And again, for the "complete safety" requirement, details really make the difference.

The gun guy is really what makes the difference, to my way of thinking.  Attacking mobs are not good, but since they (at least temporarily) backed off when the wife fired the warning shot, that's a good sign.  However, if the gun attacker gets it into his head to fight, or sees the defenders not paying attention----that all could change instantly.  The group fight part is still a lethal-force level issue, but in terms of trying to disengage, less of an issue than the gun guy (particularly given the car).

IMO. 

[JTH]

This is not to dismiss or undermine jthhapkido's substantial wisdom, because I deeply respect his point of view.  And I know I’m changing the situation here a bit to turn it into a hypothetical,  but I find hypotheticals a useful tool to delve down into the fundamental logic.

I note that when someone uses my name and "wisdom" in the same sentence, I worry that they have me confused with someone else.   

Hypotheticals can be incredibly useful.  And incredibly annoying.  Realistic "what-ifs" are great for discussions and mental rehearsals, giving people solid images with which to work on their reactions and choices. 

What-If-Monkeys who make up possibilities like "28 ninjas armed with chainsaws backed by Delta Sniper Teams!" are annoying as heck.

I like your hypothetical, because it is realistic and makes us think about real choices we might need to make, and what details would need to be present to make a good choice. 

[AWick]

One of the reasons I posted this was that almost everyone says "never fire a warning shot" because if you fear for your life you'll shoot to stop a person from killing you or another person. However, I find that indeed a warning shot WOULD stop someone from killing you, or perhaps another individual such as in this case with the wife. Per hypotheticals, if the wife was unable from her vantage point to engage the gun attacker or any of the active group attacking her husband, then to me, firing a warning shot is not only still justified, but is really the best option she had. If all the little Johnnys or other innocent individuals were obstructing her from engaging them, then a warning shot makes sense, right? It's really freaking loud and much more effective than yelling, "excuse me, sirs, but please stop beating my husband to death!"

[bkoenig]

With family and friends like that I'm sure this kid is going to grow up to be an upstanding, productive member of society.

[bullit]

If I ran into "28 ninjas armed with chainsaws backed by Delta Sniper Teams" I would only hope my training from Pincus would kick in ......

[JTH]

If I ran into "28 ninjas armed with chainsaws backed by Delta Sniper Teams" I would only hope my training from Pincus would kick in ......

I'm sure that what he teaches will be completely apt for the situation as described.

[DR4NRA]

At work and on my phone which stinks.

Another link puts a diffrent light. Parent is the one who supposedly flashed gun. No gun or brass knuckles have been located. Add in a school yard is within 1000 ft. Of football field.

http://ksn.com/2014/09/09/parent-pulls-gun-on-youth-football-coach-over-playing-time/

[JTH]

At work and on my phone which stinks.

Another link puts a diffrent light. Parent is the one who supposedly flashed gun. No gun or brass knuckles have been located. Add in a school yard is within 1000 ft. Of football field.

http://ksn.com/2014/09/09/parent-pulls-gun-on-youth-football-coach-over-playing-time/

Original link also showed that the parent flashed gun. 

It interests me that when they ask a nearby person (apparently) about it, and he says "you don't need no gun, you need to talk about it instead of being physical" which seems to be talking about the parent---and yet the news folks act as if this comment was about the coach, since they immediately segue into saying "the officials with the league agreed, and have issued their own punishment for the coach's actions."

Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see where in this report that no gun or brass knuckles have been located, or any mention that the field was within 1000 feet of a school yard.  I see that they haven't arrested anyone, so it is not surprising that no weapons have been confiscated (it isn't like they dropped them at the scene).

Is there a link to more information of some sort?  In another link, I see that the police spokesperson says:  "The couple both have concealed-carry permits and possess their weapons legally, he said. The guns were confiscated as evidence in the incident, he said, but they could get the weapons back at a later date."

http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article2049047.html#storylink=cpy

[RedDot]

If I ran into "28 ninjas armed with chainsaws backed by Delta Sniper Teams" I would only hope my training from Pincus would kick in ......

Do I sense that a law requiring chainsaw registration and mandatory training is in the works?