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

[Caleb]

If you've gotten position on the other guy to the point that you can actually put his own garrote around his neck and strangle him, you really don't need to put the garrote around his neck and strangle him. If you were able to fight your way out of a garroting & take that position in the first place, you're certainly good enough to hold that position and keep him down until the elevator door opens, which it is sure to do momentarily. Once it does, you're free to withdraw. Personally, if I somehow managed to pull off that kind of stunt, I'd probably just opt for the rear naked choke rather than trying to use the guy's own garrote against him. Far, far easier to accomplish than taking his garrote away and using it yourself.

I seriously want to know what kind of Bruce Lee / Jason Bourne people we have around here who can fight their way out of a garroting, take the garrote away, take the bad guy's back, and strangle him to death with his own garrote.

it's possible, but unlikely

 

[tom1025]

The moral of this story is don't pull this kind of stunt anywhere in Indiana.

The real moral is. If your the murderer let the person you are trying to kill get the best of you. Then cross your fingers in hopes that once the doors open there's a gun toting INGO member on the other side waiting to shoot your intended target. It's a win win for the bad guy.

 

[jbombelli]

it's possible, but unlikely

Unlikely to the extreme.

But if someone actually IS capable of fighting their way out of that and turning the tables, they're good enough to pretty much do whatever they want with the guy, because it's obvious by that point that he really sucks. That being the case a body triangle and rear naked choke would probably a much better option. Far easier to get and it doesn't destroy his carotid artery or jugular vein, and it doesn't look like you're specifically trying to kill the guy when the elevator door opens and I'm standing there seeing someone on someone else's back with a garrote dug into his neck.

The real moral is. If your the murderer let the person you are trying to kill get the best of you. Then cross your fingers in hopes that once the doors open there's a gun toting INGO member on the other side waiting to shoot your intended target. It's a win win for the bad guy.

Is that really what you took from my posts?

The real, real moral is this - defend yourself all you want. But don't commit murder. Murder is not self defense.

****************

Now everything said... you guys who would "garrote someone in self defense" might get lucky and get someone like me on your jury. I'd vote to acquit if you took the guy's garrote and strangled him to death with it. Because he deserved it. But people like me are few and far between, so good luck with that. But if you're caught trying to murder someone by someone else who didn't see how it started, it will look like you're murdering the guy. It won't look like you're defending yourself - it will look like you're murdering the guy. And you might get shot for it. That's one of the risks you take when you go down that path.

 

[grasshopperlegs]

I know what I would have done. I would have kicked the the guy the head who was doing it and kicked his ass. I have been in that situation and that is what I did. I was a self defense instructor for years and it would have become second nature to me. I hope the guy that was playing this would have good insurance.

 

[Cottong2001]

With all the silliness going on in the world (especially since the invention of video sharing, etc), you just never know what you're seeing is real or fake. That goes for violent and non-violent scenarios. For example, I'm walking down Illinois Street on the way to Rams the other day and there's a kid (teenager, very clean cut, dressed relatively nicely) sitting down begging for money as if homeless. Maybe a run-away, maybe homeless, maybe some weird science experiment. Anymore, I've advised my wife and kids not to approach anyone begging. Not that I don't have compassion, but I have no idea what they are going to do. I've been followed for blocks by someone that I gave a handout to. Not a good situation especially with my young kids with me. I just don't do it anymore.

I agree that shoot first, think later was not a good option in the video. And as someone said, you don't know who the BG is. It's a dead serious game these guys are playing...not one I'd ever advise anyone to engage in. It DOES make you think about real crimes that have occurred having been witnessed and no one took action. You simply don't know what you're going to do in such a real situation unless you've been there. Stuff like this is also staged as a distraction for REAL assaults to take place (BG waiting for you to intervene and then attacked from behind).

I guess it's another reason to consider force on force training.

 

[tom1025]

Is that really what you took from my posts?

The real, real moral is this - defend yourself all you want. But don't commit murder. Murder is not self defense.

****************

Not really. I just figured you had a soft spot for bad guys. Seeing how your avatar is a pirate.

 

[tom1025]

I know what I would have done. I would have kicked the the guy the head who was doing it and kicked his ass. I have been in that situation and that is what I did. I was a self defense instructor for years and it would have become second nature to me. I hope the guy that was playing this would have good insurance.

Easy grasshopper! Your going to have to assume a new role. INGO has already meet its quota for internet bad aces.

 

[redgreenrider]

He would have been injured before they had a chance to say April fools. The two are morons!

 

[jbombelli]

Not really. I just figured you had a soft spot for bad guys. Seeing how your avatar is a pirate.

No. No soft spot for bad guys at all. You have to understand that when you're the one with the garrote you look like the bad guy. Rear naked choke? There's lots of room for doubt with that. I've seen people defend themselves by taking someone's back, sinking in a rear naked choke, and choking them until they were unconscious. I've seen examples of people using bats, guns, knives, pool cues, hammers, screwdrivers, blackjacks, saps, boards, cars, all kinds of things in self defense. But a garrote? In all of 46 years I've never heard of a single incident of a person using a garrote to defend himself, ever. That's simply not what people use them for. A garrote means, in the paraphrased words of another poster, "**** you I'm gonna kill you." And THAT is not self defense.

 

[Mango]

You guys are arguing this scenario like there's a positive outcome, there isn't one. Any attempts to rationalize are just strawman arguments to bolster a position without knowing the entire background. The end result of drawing a weapon is always bad. The reason we carry is because any other result may be worse. I don't want the police to investigate me, I don't want the guilt of injuring or taking another persons life, but that the courage to override that and ensure that myself or someone else does not become a victim is what drives me. Lets back off the testosterone pedal and realize hypothetical situation is hypothetical and reflect on the best ways to handle it without the petty name calling.

 

[tom1025]

You guys are arguing this scenario like there's a positive outcome, there isn't one. Any attempts to rationalize are just strawman arguments to bolster a position without knowing the entire background. The end result of drawing a weapon is always bad. The reason we carry is because any other result may be worse. I don't want the police to investigate me, I don't want the guilt of injuring or taking another persons life, but that the courage to override that and ensure that myself or someone else does not become a victim is what drives me. Lets back off the testosterone pedal and realize hypothetical situation is hypothetical and reflect on the best ways to handle it without the petty name calling.

Welcome to INGO. So far this thread seemed pretty civil compared to others. Who's name calling?

 

[jbombelli]

You guys are arguing this scenario like there's a positive outcome, there isn't one. Any attempts to rationalize are just strawman arguments to bolster a position without knowing the entire background. The end result of drawing a weapon is always bad. The reason we carry is because any other result may be worse. I don't want the police to investigate me, I don't want the guilt of injuring or taking another persons life, but that the courage to override that and ensure that myself or someone else does not become a victim is what drives me. Lets back off the testosterone pedal and realize hypothetical situation is hypothetical and reflect on the best ways to handle it without the petty name calling.

Remember this whole thread was based on a video, wherein they were "staging a murder" to see how people would react. Coming upon a scene like that, it would be reasonable to infer that a murder is being committed, when they're "staging a murder", would it not? After all, their specific intent was to make people believe that.

Welcome to INGO. So far this thread seemed pretty civil compared to others. Who's name calling?

HappyGunner called me an idiot. But I don't worry about it.

 

[Cheapdiesel]

You ARE crossing a line if you go from DEFENDING yourself to MURDERING the guy. I don't care how you get there, murdering the guy is murdering the guy. A garrote is NOT a weapon of defense. It's a weapon of assassination. If you're being garroted, you're going to die. You aren't going to turn it around, take the garrote off your own neck and out of his hands, take the other guy's back, put it around HIS neck, and strangle him with it. I laugh at anyone who thinks they can pull that off. That said, even if you somehow miraculously DO manage to pull that off, you're still crossing the line from defending yourself to committing murder. You see, once you get the best of the guy you're defending yourself from, it's over. Self defense is done. If you KEEP GOING by continuing to strangle him once you're in a position to withdraw, you're now murdering the guy.

unless it's a cutting wire I will try it with you. I bet I can take the attacker out in 10 sec or less. Of course I have experience and training.

 

[Cheapdiesel]

I don't think I would have shot him. I probably wouldn't have thought of that until after I had kicked him in the head a few times.

 

[indytechnerd]

unless it's a cutting wire I will try it with you. I bet I can take the attacker out in 10 sec or less. Of course I have experience and training.

'take the attacker out' by defeating his garrotte choke, taking said garrotte from him, getting his back and applying the garrotte to the (former) attacker?
Or, just get yourself out of being choked out by lamp cord?

 

[Cheapdiesel]

'take the attacker out' by defeating his garrotte choke, taking said garrotte from him, getting his back and applying the garrotte to the (former) attacker?
Or, just get yourself out of being choked out by lamp cord?

when you are being rear chocked you don't really have time to mess with the choke whatever the method. If it's a good choke and you are not conditioned you may only have 10 seconds before you blackout. So you have to quickly disable the attacker. First things first.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Explain to me how you're going to shoot someone who had somebody in a deadth choke, in an elevator without witnesses, not knowing who was the initial aggressor?

Would it change your mind if the "chokee" was a woman?

 

[jbombelli]

unless it's a cutting wire I will try it with you. I bet I can take the attacker out in 10 sec or less. Of course I have experience and training.

That's a pretty big all-in bet, not knowing anything about "the attacker."

 

[indytechnerd]

You ARE crossing a line if you go from DEFENDING yourself to MURDERING the guy. I don't care how you get there, murdering the guy is murdering the guy. A garrote is NOT a weapon of defense. It's a weapon of assassination. If you're being garroted, you're going to die. You aren't going to turn it around, take the garrote off your own neck and out of his hands, take the other guy's back, put it around HIS neck, and strangle him with it. I laugh at anyone who thinks they can pull that off. That said, even if you somehow miraculously DO manage to pull that off, you're still crossing the line from defending yourself to committing murder. You see, once you get the best of the guy you're defending yourself from, it's over. Self defense is done. If you KEEP GOING by continuing to strangle him once you're in a position to withdraw, you're now murdering the guy.



As far as being a third party... you should read the IC if you haven't already. You can use deadly force to protect yourself OR A THIRD PERSON from serious bodily injury or death.

when you are being rear chocked you don't really have time to mess with the choke whatever the method. If it's a good choke and you are not conditioned you may only have 10 seconds before you blackout. So you have to quickly disable the attacker. First things first.

Ok, so you didn't respond to the actual statement in jbombelli's post, which I bolded for you. The discussion isn't taking the guy out, it's reversing the roles so that when I, as a gun-toting INGOer, open the elevator door, it appears that YOU are the aggressor and the person that may or may not get shot. Up thread, there's a ton of "what if" you shoot the wrong guy because the defender has gained the upper hand and reversed the roles.

I have no doubt that, in 10secs, someone could make the original attacker stop his attack, but doing so in the way described in bold above shifts your role from the defender to the aggressor.

 

[usaf64]

I think the whole thing was staged. That is, all of the people who saw it were in on it.

The fire extinguisher was a carbon dioxide type. There are very few on these around where the public would have ready access to them. Most extinguishers which are accessible are the dry chemical type. They create a big cloud of agent which would fill the elevator and choke the heck out of all three of them. They also leave a mess which can corrode electronic components in the elevator. So the scenario is not believable in my opinion.

I agree with those who've said that at least one of those people would have put a size 10 in the guy's face if it were a real scenario. The guy in the camo pants would be a likely candidate.

I ain't going for it.