Police/Bartender Brawl in Chicago:

[Greybeard]

Video of interview with bartender - who looks like she did a decent job of fending off punches and kicks.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... &cset=true

[txinvestigator]

He was off duty and drunk. He should be treated as any citizen (which he is) that assaults another.

I agree with this from a prosecution standpoint.

However from the CPD standpoint, he should be fired. They should hold him to a higher standard as an officer.

Oh heck yes!

[kw5kw]

He was off duty and drunk. He should be treated as any citizen (which he is) that assaults another.

I agree with this from a prosecution standpoint.

However from the CPD standpoint, he should be fired. They should hold him to a higher standard as an officer.

Oh heck yes!

The question is, how does one deal with this type of situation as a CHL holder while armed or disarmed? It may sound silly since most of us will probably not be involved in a barroom brawl especially while armed. One could however be faced with a similar incident in a restaurant or any public space. I am interested in reading other opinions on this problem. Thank You

If placed in this particular situation, I would not have drawn on the cop. I agree that pepper spray probably would have been best, but I don't carry any so I wouldn't have had any. I probably would have tried to push the guy off the woman and pull her out of there.

By just looking at the video, the person doing the hitting was or had:

A large man hitting a much smaller woman,
He had baggy jeans,
He had his hat on backwards,

He could have been just a run-of-the-mill thug

I would have never known he was an off-duty cop!

Unless he had a badge on his belt that I could not see from the video.

Russ

[Venus Pax]

IMHO, the way to avoid this type of attack is to see it coming and either be somewhere else or summon help.

That still doesn't answer the question. Suppose, you/me with a CHL, are the only "help" that is present.

CHLers do not have the legal right to intervene on a stranger's behalf. We barely have the legal right to intervene on our own relatives' behalves.


Also, this particular LEO is why I refuse to pull over in a deserted area. I realize most of these guys are honorable, but the mean ones still aren't tagged.

Also, if a drunk guy comes at me swinging and threatening, I would have to consider that deadly force, as angry drunks just don't respond well to deescalation measures.

[flintknapper]

I saw the video on the news last night. A friend of mine that works for the Irving Police was over at the house and saw the video also. We both agreed that once that guy stepped behind the bar that all bets were off. I'm ticked that it took so long for the other patrons to get involved. I was raised "Old School", if a man lays a hand on a woman he gets put on the ground before he can blink.

Yup!

I like "Old School".

[txinvestigator]

IMHO, the way to avoid this type of attack is to see it coming and either be somewhere else or summon help.

That still doesn't answer the question. Suppose, you/me with a CHL, are the only "help" that is present.

CHLers do not have the legal right to intervene on a stranger's behalf. We barely have the legal right to intervene on our own relatives' behalves.

Sure you do.

Texas Penal Code
§9.33. Defense of third person.

A person is justified in using force or deadly force against
another to protect a third person if:

(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes
them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32
in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful
force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be
threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and

(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is
immediately necessary to protect the third person.

Also, this particular LEO is why I refuse to pull over in a deserted area. I realize most of these guys are honorable, but the mean ones still aren't tagged.

You are referring to a plain vehicle right, one not marked with clear police lights on the roof or grill?

Also, if a drunk guy comes at me swinging and threatening, I would have to consider that deadly force, as angry drunks just don't respond well to deescalation measures.

The fact that "drunks just don't respond well to de-escalation measures" is not a justification for the use of deadly force. However, I believe you would be justified in using deadly force in the incident depicted here because his blows could, in the manner of their use, cause serious bodily injury or even death.

A drunk who is stumbling and unable to land a blow, nearly falling down with each attempt would not, in most circumstances, be a candidate to have deadly force used against him. Of course that does not represent the drunk in this video.

[Venus Pax]

We were actually taught in our CHL class that it is a bad idea to intervene unless we know the situation, as intervention is beyond our training.
Ex: One person attacking another in public place, and we don't know the situation prior to our arrival or our notice of the issue. How do we know the "victim" didn't actually start the brawl?
Also, how would any of us know that the scenario we're discussing wasn't a domestic disturbance? If I shoot him, I could very possibly be looking at civil charges from her! And it's highly likely she would collect. How does the law protect me there? Should my family and I go through that?

We were taught that, unless it's YOUR relative/friend and you KNOW the situation, call the police and gather as much info as possible. If they see you on the phone and start messing with you, its a different story.

[MTICop]

I would think, since I wasn't in your class to hear the entire scenario, that your instructor was cautioning your class not to assume anything in a situation. I have seen a few training scenarios where we had to "find the bad guy/girl" and it was easy to make a snap judgement and be wrong. In one particular scenario, they were video scenarios, when the incident was in camera view it appeared a woman was being attacked by two males. As the scenario played out, you find out the female was actually the perpetrator in the scenario. Wish I still had the link to put it on here so everyone could see it. Anyway, this again goes to being aware of your surroundings at all times. The good samaritan thing will go bad if someone makes a snap judgement and shoots an innocent. Therefore, IMO, your instructors were cautioning you to be aware.

If I am wrong, I apologize but I can see, based on what I think, that this is good advise.

[Greybeard]

Quote: "this is good advise". Typically, often so.

This type of character is why some "Old School" bartenders keep a 12 gauge handy. And they generally know who all the "players" are before having to point the thing.

[longtooth]

Old school graduate also. When he came around the bar that was a threat & she defended w/ the push. He escalated it, she defended.
The way I see it anyway.

Be careful on your Batan Run tomorrow MTICop.

[jbirds1210]

[

Also, this particular LEO is why I refuse to pull over in a deserted area. I realize most of these guys are honorable, but the mean ones still aren't tagged.

You are referring to a plain vehicle right, one not marked with clear police lights on the roof or grill?

Hello friend-
I am taking this to PM because I do not want to hijack the thread. To be honest, with all of the craziness going on in Houston right now.....I have asked Kimberly not to stop on a dark road/alley/or rural setting, no matter what the case is.

While I understand that this is illegal, I wanted your opinion on it. Is it reasonable for my pregnant wife (I have not made that public news) to first call and confirm the status or let 911 know that she is being pulled over? As you know.....lights for the grill and roof are readily available to the public. While Kimberly and I are both law-abiding citizens with all the respect in the world for LEO.....I would rather pay a fine or go and get her out of jail than have her dead. Hopefully the situation would solve itself if it ever came up with a little bit of explanation. Until then.....she just obeys the law by driving the speed limit and obeying traffic law to avoid the situation. That said, I would never blame her for using her sound judgement over the demands of an officer......call me stubborn, but she is that important to me.

I thought you might shed some light...this is something that Kimberly and I have discussed many times. Thanks!
Jason

[TX Rancher]

I have a basic rule I tell folks…don’t get involved in fights that aren’t yours. But certain things seem to get past my logical/legal ramifications filter and I tend to act on instinct instead of thought.

While watching the video, I was getting madder by the second, and it was clear that if I was in the bar, I would have reacted. It may not have been legally prudent for me to get involved, but I can’t change my nature…

Based on the video, I saw nothing the girl did that justified him responding the way he did. No I didn’t hear the audio, but no mater how bad the insult or put-down was, it didn’t justify him coming behind the bar…and her trying to push him back to where he belonged didn’t justify his response either. To sit and watch her get beat like that would be against every standard I have.

If I move this incident to Texas, then I would not be armed with a pistol since it’s a bar, so my options would be limited to non-firearm (verbal, knees, elbows, hands, bottles, folder, etc). Note to self, I really need to get some pepper spray and start carrying it! I’m too old and worn down for fisty-cuffs.

Now I haven’t been in a bar in over 20 years, so let’s move this to a location I’m more likely to visit like a restaurant and make the girl a waitress behind the counter. In this case, I would be armed with my pistol. I would have someone call 911 and then I would order the guy to get off the girl. If verbal commands were ignored, or he advanced on me, I may pull the pistol. Being an off duty cop, he would probably be carrying, and may try to draw against the drop (after all, he is drunk…) and the situation would go downhill fast from there…for both of us.

But there’s another possibility to the scenario…when I give the command to stop, he actually stops beating the girl and shifts his attention to me. If he advances on me, I retreat and continue to try and de-escalate the situation, and ultimately am successful. The waitress’s injuries are limited, the cop doesn’t get shot, I don’t display my pistol, he probably storms out of the restaurant, I let him go, and we all get to live to see another day. I personally believe this outcome is at least as likely as the first one (even more likely). By the way, it appears to me that’s what happened in the video…

MTICop: Those shoot/no-shoot training exercises are a real eye opener aren’t they. During the 70’s I was working counter-intel and they were big on training exercises. In one exercise we were told there were very bad guys on the other side of the door and we were to take them down (capture was not the intent). The door was breached and I was the first one through. What I saw as a guy sitting in a chair with a pistol in his hand pointing in my direction. I fired while moving to make room for the others to enter and we cleared the room. I was very surprised to find there was only one terrorist in the place.

Then we had the after action review and I found out how wrong I was. It seems we breached the “wrong address� due to a typo at HQ, the guy I shot was in fact just cleaning his 45, and the instructor said “Son, go directly to jail�. After doing my 20 push-ups I asked what I should have done. His answer was “don’t shoot innocent people� and I did another 20 for asking stupid questions.

The next day it was a similar exercise, again I was first through the door, the guy was again sitting with a weapon and I hesitated…the guy shot me before the second guy through the door got him. I did another 20 for letting government property (me) get destroyed.

I asked the instructor just exactly what was he trying to teach me? One day it’s wrong to shoot, and the next it’s not…his answer was “I’m trying to teach you that you can be dead right, and dead wrong. This is a dangerous business, learn to live with it�. Then of course I did the obligatory 20 push-ups for “being stupid�.

The training lasted for several weeks with multiple exercises per week, and I made other mistakes, but after all these years, those two have stuck in my mind.

But it’s a lesson I think applies to us as CHL holders. When you strap on that weapon, you accept a heavy responsibility that could have serious consequences for you and others. And here’s a key point, no action can be just as bad as action when the final results comes in.

What if in this particular case, the drunk eventually landed a blow that caused the death of the girl, and you know that had you acted you could have stopped it, but didn’t. That would be a heavy responsibility to live with for most of us. Trust your instincts and make a decision, but realize you could be right, or wrong.

[seamusTX]

I am taking this to PM ....

Not quite.

.....I have asked Kimberly not to stop on a dark road/alley/or rural setting, no matter what the case is.
While I understand that this is illegal, I wanted your opinion on it. Is it reasonable for my pregnant wife ...

Congratulations on the good news.

I would like to see some discussion of this topic also. Aside from police impersonators, actual on-duty uniformed LEOs in patrol cars have assaulted women. Two cases of that are working through the system in Galveston now, and IIRC there was one in Texas City several years ago.

- Jim

[txinvestigator]

We were actually taught in our CHL class that it is a bad idea to intervene unless we know the situation, as intervention is beyond our training.
Ex: One person attacking another in public place, and we don't know the situation prior to our arrival or our notice of the issue. How do we know the "victim" didn't actually start the brawl?
Also, how would any of us know that the scenario we're discussing wasn't a domestic disturbance? If I shoot him, I could very possibly be looking at civil charges from her! And it's highly likely she would collect. How does the law protect me there? Should my family and I go through that?

We were taught that, unless it's YOUR relative/friend and you KNOW the situation, call the police and gather as much info as possible. If they see you on the phone and start messing with you, its a different story.

Philosophically, that stance is arguable; however, you wrote that CHLers do not have a legal right to intervene, and that is not correct.

Personally I disagree with you. I don't care who started the assault, or if I could get sued, I would have intervened in that officer's assault of that bartender. It is a moral obligation I have. However, intervention is not required of a person.

[stevie_d_64]

We were actually taught in our CHL class that it is a bad idea to intervene unless we know the situation, as intervention is beyond our training.
Ex: One person attacking another in public place, and we don't know the situation prior to our arrival or our notice of the issue. How do we know the "victim" didn't actually start the brawl?
Also, how would any of us know that the scenario we're discussing wasn't a domestic disturbance? If I shoot him, I could very possibly be looking at civil charges from her! And it's highly likely she would collect. How does the law protect me there? Should my family and I go through that?

We were taught that, unless it's YOUR relative/friend and you KNOW the situation, call the police and gather as much info as possible. If they see you on the phone and start messing with you, its a different story.

Philosophically, that stance is arguable; however, you wrote that CHLers do not have a legal right to intervene, and that is not correct.

Personally I disagree with you. I don't care who started the assault, or if I could get sued, I would have intervened in that officer's assault of that bartender. It is a moral obligation I have. However, intervention is not required of a person.

Even though I believe one of the most important factors in the curriculum is the conflict resolution portion of the class, I am torn a little between the legality of intervention in third party disputes and the need to not escalate the situation...

Where a simple assault or a battery crime may exist, your intervention could cause someone to decide to bring something to the incident that could warrant the use of deadly force in the defense of yourself or someone else...

Like Txi implied that it could be a moral obligation for you to step in a try to diffuse a situation...

I believe most of us have already made the decision, and know where that line is drawn...

We are also told (and this is kinda the conflict) to not incite someone either into a confrontation...With this new Castle Doctrine bill being passed, I sense that there should be some re-evaluation of how you would handle certain third party senarios...

Maybe it effects some, maybe it doesn't...

Just something I'd toss out there to think about...