Disparity of Force

There was a fight that occurred in a Raleigh, NC high school. The fight was nearly 30 students jumping one solitary student. They knocked him to the ground, kicking and jumping on his head. You can see in the video that he produces a knife then stabs one of his largest attackers. Police arrested the kid, 14 years old, and charged him with murder.

Unless I am really missing something, I think that this is textbook self defense, unless there was something that happened before the video began. It was 30 against 1, the suspect was on the ground, and they were taking actions that would likely result in serious bodily harm. He clearly stabbed and then, rather than push the attack, he used it to escape the mob. The minute he was able to exit he did. The choice was to be killed or seriously injured or stab back.

Sure, he had a knife at school, but that will at most result in him being charged with illegally carrying a weapon at school, but that doesn’t make his defending himself with it into a murder case.

Another odd occurrence. At about 15 seconds, you can see what appears to be a gun that was dropped by one of the attackers.

This brings another piece to the puzzle. This illustrates a few issues.

  • You don’t fight one of them. There is always a gang.
  • Blacks are largely violent when in large enough groups.
  • Our schools are failures. For most Americans, the only place they experience being attacked is in our schools.

I’m Not Your Punching Bag

When I got a Bachelor’s Degree in EMS administration, my capstone research project was about violence against healthcare workers. Emergency medical workers are the victims of workplace violence more often than any other profession: more than police, prison guards, and convenience store clerks. I don’t know why, but people generally have no problem attacking EMS and emergency room workers. Scenes like the one in this post are actually more common than you would think.

I have always taken the position that no one should have to be a complacent target of someone else’s misplaced intoxicated rage. Many employers view self defense as a form of violence. I have even had coworkers (nurses, EMTs, and paramedics) tell me that “we are held to a higher standard, and shouldn’t succumb to the instinct of defending ourselves.”


I don’t care what profession I am in- I should not have to be, and refuse to be, someone’s punching bag. That doesn’t mean that my response shouldn’t be proportional to the level of the attack. A woman hitting me like that is going to be put in a wrist lock. If you have an effective wrist lock, you can work against the joint just a bit to cause pain compliance. If they struggle more, twist a bit harder, and they will bend away from you. It’s an amazingly effective technique in controlling a violent patient without causing injury. Just don’t overdo it, or you will wind up having to explain and treat a broken bone.

If you couple it with pressure on the ulnar nerve, forcing it to be compressed between your fingers and the olecranon, it causes a good bit of pain without causing permanent injury. It’s essentially compressing “the funny bone” and, properly applied causes the same sort of pain you feel when you hit your elbow and feel the fire sensation running down your arm.

It’s a skill worth learning to subdue people without permanently hurting them.

Not Hate

There are those who say that I “hate cops” because I disagree with their actions when they screw up. Well, here is a time when I think that the police were completely justified in their use of force:

I don’t care that she is a girl. I don’t care that she is, at 16 years of age, still legally a child. She entered into a fight with a police officer and attacked him in an attempt to disarm him and acquire possession of his weapon. The police must presume that, should she gain control of this weapon, it will be used against them.

For that reason, the officer was entirely within the bounds of being reasonable when he threw her to the ground. This is a clear case of self defense.


I don’t know where people get the idea from that taking pictures of or looking at others without their permission is illegal. It isn’t. If it was, shooting the video below would be just as illegal as taking a picture of some random whore’s ass.

Still, this happens periodically. For some reason, some muscle head always decides that he is going to be a freelance cop and use force to defend some skank’s honor. It happened to me a few years ago.

In this case, someone grabbing me by the back of the neck is about to become a cautionary tale at someone else’s concealed carry class. At the very least, there will be a bar clearing discharge of some tactical spices, and there is a distinct possibility of you having a cool cast for the skank to sign later.

Back to 45ACP or .40?

I began carrying 9mm several years ago because modern bullet design has made the difference in energy transfer between handgun rounds of different calibers virtually identical when striking internal organs, and I wanted the higher ammunition capacity of 9mm. However, with JKB over at Gunfreezone pointing out that increasing numbers of opponents are wearing body armor, that it is becoming necessary to aim for the pelvis. Shattering the pelvis in such a situation carries certain benefits: it immobilizes the target (a person with a shattered pelvis can’t stand, much less walk or run) and with the major arteries that are located there, bleeding out is a definite advantage.

The heavier bullets of .40S&W and .45ACP are better suited to shattering bone. I may be doing a bit of research into this to see if my choice of EDC needs to be updated. I might even take a real look at getting me a 10mm. Always good to have an excuse for a new gun…

Doctrine of Transferred Intent.

A common misconception is that you are legally liable for every bullet you fire in a self defense situation. That is not exactly the case. The answer to this is called the doctrine of transferred intent.

The simple reason is that the shooter (self-defense actor) was not the proximate cause of the harm to the innocent bystander. Although that may seem counter intuitive to say (given he was the one who actually fired the gun), it was in fact the attacker provoking the self-defense actor who caused the bystander harm.

In the legal world this is called the doctrine of transferred intent. It has been recited in numerous cases (see State v. Green, 157 W. Va. 1031, 1034, 206 S.E.2d 923, 926 (1974)).

I don’t want to steal any more of attorney Phil Nelson’s thunder or expertise on this. Check out this article at his excellent self defense blog here. Know the law. Stay out of jail.

More on Defensive Shooting

Last month, I posted about a shooting at Applebee’s that later appeared to be a defensive shooting by a CCW holder. The police have released more details:

At some point, Hudson got into an argument with a male and female out in the parking lot, and as the pair left in a car, Hudson pulled out a handgun and fired three times into the air. Hudson then walked to a side door that the employees use, which is where a female friend of his tried to get him to leave before police showed up. The release shows that Hudson refused to leave, instead heading into the restaurant and demanding to know who called the police.

Investigators said that Hudson reached into his pants, prompting a patron — identified as 27-year-old Drew Manno — to fatally shoot Hudson. Police added that Manno had a concealed weapon permit and told police he was in fear for the lives of himself and those with him. Hudson’s handgun was not found at the scene, and its whereabouts are unknown at this time. Police said they were able to find the three shell casings from Hudson’s handgun in the parking lot.

Sounds like a good shoot.

Just Give Them What They Want

The antigun left’s mantra in self defense shootings is always one of a few responses, including:

  • Take Your Beating Like a Man
  • Just Give Them What They Want

Just give them what they want. The left claims that all you have to do is give them what they ask for, after all, they are probably just trying to feed their family. A few dollars isn’t worth killing over. Just comply. This clerk did, and he was executed for it. Even though it’s difficult to see, you should click on over and watch the video (sorry, can’t embed it).

This begs the question: What if what the criminal wants is your life? How do you know the difference? He is demonstrating the ability, the willingness, the means to kill you, over a few dollars. Remember.


Two men threaten physical violence against a restaurant patron. One threatens deadly force (“I will stick yo ass, nigga.”). The comments to this video claim that they are in the right because the man said he is a racist.

I wouldn’t have turned my back on them. These thugs went there with the intention of starting a confrontation. They brought an expensive camera with them and are clearly goading him into a response. So they walked up to his table and started a scene, so they could record the it after they started the event by stealing a drink from the table. So given these facts:

  • Thug in hat: “I will beat yo ass right now. Here, hold this camera.”
  • Turns hat backwards.
  • Gets in the guys face.
  • Outnumbered two to one

In this case, I think that it is reasonable to believe that there is a real risk of imminently becoming the victim of violence. Keep in mind that he has already threatened deadly force. They stole a drink. That makes this armed robbery, a forcible felony.

Would a warning be in order: “Back off right now, or you are going to regret it?” Or, is the threat imminent enough that immediate force can be used?

If force can be used or threatened, is it enough for the presentation for a firearm, or would you be limited to pepper spray? If you are wrong, you either die or go to jail.


The nice folks over at GunFreeZone posted a link to a video and expressed an opinion on posturing. I invite you to go and check it out. Unfortunately, that opinion is incorrect. JKB makes the claim that the loser of the fight is displaying decorticate posturing. He is wrong.

What you see in the video is decerebrate posturing. In the difference lies a huge change in prognosis. All posturing is a common outcome of severe brain injury. It refers to involuntary and abnormal positioning, and the presence of posturing after TBI suggests a poor prognosis.

Both types of posturing often indicate some extent of damage to the brainstem, which is the part of the brain that controls important functions like breathing. Decerebrate posturing, which is what we see in the video JKB linked to, is caused by damage to deeper brain structures and is much more common than the other type, decorticate posturing. Decorticate posturing is caused by damage to both hemispheres of the cerebral cortex and is rarer than decerebrate posturing, but is generally associated with better survival rates.

Generally, the recovery outlook for individuals with abnormal posturing after brain injury is poor. Even though there are instances where individuals regain consciousness and recover, only 37% of those who display decorticate posturing after a head injury survive. Only about 10% of individuals with decerebrate posturing survive.

In the video JKB links to, the individual displaying this posturing has one thing going for him: Youth. If he is admitted into the hospital within 6 hours of his injury, he is likely to double his chances of survival, even though it is still likely that he will have some permanent disability. So an 80% chance of death, and a 20% chance of permanent disability. All of that from a punch to the head.

Think about that the next time someone says that a concealed carrier should just take “his beating like a man.”