The Knock-Out Game

[LSN80]

As most of you have undoubtably heard, the "Knock-out Game" has become a popular phenomenom recently in the United States, Canada, and Great Britain. What occurs during such game is a perpetrator approaching a victim, and unsuspectingly sucker punches them. It has become a game played both by street kids and as a gang ritual alike. Until recently, however, it has received little mainstream media coverage. So why now? Because 17 year old Marvell Watkins, in attempting to play said game, was shot twice by his intended victim.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/pj-gla...out-game-perp-was-caught-shot-concealed-carry

Watkins has spoken out about his 'reasoning' for playing said game, and has attributed it to peer pressure, essentially. Watkins took it one step further then knocking out his victim, however, as he attempted to use a stun-gun on him. The taser didn't work however, and in defense, the intended victim used his concealed weapon(which he had a permit for) to shoot Watkins in both his leg, and near his spine. Watkins, while seeming contrite, also seems to downplay the gravity of the situation in his statement:

"It was a lesson learned. Someone throws it out there: 'Want to play this?' And people go along with it and one thing leads to another, and it just goes all downhill."

In essence, Watkins is chalking his actions up to peer pressure. Perhaps the young man doesn't understand the gravity of the situation, but how could he not now that he was shot, is in jail, and is fortunate he wasn't killed? This is much more then a peer-pressure situation. Good human beings, regardless of the "games" their friends are playing, don't engage in such behavior. The fact that he went even further and attempted to use a taser on an innocent stranger, without cause, shows he was trying to injure the man.

Some controversy has arisen as while many news stations have picked up on the story, they've skipped from Watkins attempt to him being apprehended. In doing so, they're avoiding an important component: Watkins was shot twice. There are some who believe that, since the taser misfired, that the shooting was unjustified, and the unidentified man who shot him should be charged. Michigan, after all, is not a Stand Your Grand state. The man who shot Watkins, in self-defense, had the following to say about the incident:

"He shoved something into my side. I wasn't sure what it was. It had some force to it. I wasn't sure if it was a knife or a gun."

What was the man supposed to do? He obviously feared for his life, and in doing so, defended himself in the best possible way. It's a split-second decision here, and the unnamed victim had little time to react. As a gun owner myself(though I rarely carry it), had I been armed, I would have shot him myself.

As for Watkins, he'll be spending the next year in jail, and will need extensive rehab for his injuries. For what it's worth, the young man himself felt he got off too easy.

Did Watkins get off too easily with just a year in jail?

Was the shooting of Watkins in reaction a justified one? Should he have attempted to flee instead?

Let's hear what you got on this.

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

He should've shot him in the head and ended this. That may sound real harsh but these are bone headed thugs who only understand one language. You can reason all you want but for them, if they are getting caught and being let off with only a year, the stakes will only be 'higher' for them to play this game.

If this gets any more popular I'd advise everyone to stay vigilant. These punk sucker punchers who think they are hot stuff because they can sneak in and get a punch in have little understanding of what laws and rules, and livelihoods are. So with all due respect, he should've been shot in the head.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

My father is now both physically and mentally handicapped because of an attack that was very similar to "The Knock Out Game" when he was elbowed in the face by a younger, bigger and stronger assailant. The judge was caught with not having a precedent for a single strike assault causing such damage and as such this thug only received a sentence that will see him out in a couple years (if he isn't out already).

My belief is that there should be a standard jail sentence for anyone who attempts something of this nature and that it should be worthy of deterring them (personally, I'd go for 10 years). With the proper set punishment, I think this 'game' would lose much of it's appeal.

As far as shooting your assailant, you cannot carry a weapon this side of the pond and that is a good thing. If thugs will happily punch a stranger, how much worse would it be if they could carry a weapon too?

 

[Blade]

If I thought that this shooting would serve as a message to the other morons out there, I'd be very glad this happened. But morons are going to continue to be morons unfortunately. Personally, I hope that more of these assholes get shot. To paraphrase Bill Hicks, if some of them get killed, we'd hardly be losing a cure for cancer.

I think that you should get severely punished for doing anything that could cause significant physical, mental or emotional damage to another person, and this falls into at least two of those categories. So one year in prison is far too lenient. Assaults like this are far worse than robberies or drug dealings, so it should get harsher jail time.

As for the guy who shot the person trying to attack him, well, that's what he should've done. If someone, especially someone you don't know, comes at you with some kind of weapon, and you have a gun, you shoot the asshole.

Maybe I'm sounding harsh here, but there's nothing I despise more than people who negatively affect the life of decent people on purpose.

 

[hatehabsforever]

Did Watkins get off too easily with just a year in jail?

Absolutely he got off too easily with just one year in jail. Random acts of violence against innocent and unsuspecting victims deserve a far stiffer penalty than just a slap on the wrist. A clearer message needs to be sent to the perpetrators of such acts, both the individual himself as well as the countless others like him.

Was the shooting of Watkins in reaction a justified one? Should he have attempted to flee instead?

The shooting of Watkins was totally justified and I don't care about the fact that he was shot twice, that's irrelevant in my mind. Put yourself in that dude's shoes. You are walking along the street, mindng your own business when all of a sudden you are randomly assaulted, and with an unknown weapon no less. You do whatever it takes to protect yourself and to ensure no further harm comes upon you. If Watkins is prepared to live by the sword, he should be prepared to die by the sword as well. What happens if the victim shoots Watkins once but does not incapacitate him in the process? Now he is really up against a potentially larger assault. I say shoot your offender (if you happen to be carrying a legal firearm, which is a totally separate discussion) to whatever extent it requires to ensure your safety.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

If you randomly run up and attack someone, they might defend themselves.

Welcome to earth, scones and fruit punch are on the table to the left.

 

[Slash-LN]

He was totally justified in shooting him. Anyone who thinks otherwise is incredibly stupid. A random stranger sticks something into your side with force that could be a knife or a gun why wouldn't you do what you can to defend yourself? Everyone of the videos I've seen about this stupid thing involves groups of people attacking someone who is alone. I'm sure this case was no different.

I don't know off hand what the standard sentence is for an assault charge with or without a weapon but whatever it is this type of thing should just fall under that.

The people who do this stupid thing probably don't pay close enough attention to the news or care enough to pay attention to the consequences of this kind of thing so I doubt anyone is going to learn anything from this shooting except the one person who got shot. The type of person who would go around doing this in the first place probably feels untouchable. It's like with drugs or people that drive at insanely high speeds. They see people die from overdoses and car crashes but they think it won't happen to them so it doesn't hinder them from doing those things.

 

[LSN80]

If you randomly run up and attack someone, they might defend themselves.

Welcome to earth, scones and fruit punch are on the table to the left.

I'm not even going to try and disagree with this, because to me, it's as simple as this. If I was carrying my gun, which I rarely do, I would have shot the bastard without a second thought, and not felt bad for a moment.

The reason I asked the question about whether or not the man should have done something different is because some of the bigger media outlets reporting it have been critical of the man who responded, saying he should have used "less violent means", such as attempting to disarm, punching the man, or even running away. I think that logic is idiocy, because as the man said, he didn't know what was being pushed into his side, and thought it a knife or gun. So personally, I think his reaction was 100% appropriate to the situation, and if he had died or been paralyzed-he was shot about an inch from his spine-I would shed no tears for him.

So while I'm responding to Norcal here, the question is for anyone:

What are your thoughts on the idea some media outlets and 'experts' who have weighed in on the victim's actions have suggested-shooting the kid twice-was too extreme?

 

[Mustang Sally]

Was the shooting of Watkins in reaction a justified one?

Sure, why not? Watkins himself seems to understand this when he says: "It was a lesson learned. Someone throws it out there: 'Want to play this?' And people go along with it and one thing leads to another, and it just goes all downhill."

In other words, instead of the typical bully who might believe that whatever he chooses to do is fair, but someone fighting back is unfair, Watkins knows that if he decides to do something like this, he might run into the wrong person and wind up suffering himself.

I'm not defending Watkins in any way, but he appears to have a realistic view of the situation......for all people who will argue that this was an unjustified shooting on the part of Watkins' target, it should be understood that the real point of the incident is that if Watkins hadn't attempted to play his peer pressure induced "game," he wouldn't have been shot......and it's just as well that people who feel compelled by peer pressure to do bad things realize that their desire to fit in with their peers carries risk for them, too. It might make some of them think before doing this kind of garbage.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

I'm not even going to try and disagree with this, because to me, it's as simple as this. If I was carrying my gun, which I rarely do, I would have shot the bastard without a second thought, and not felt bad for a moment.

The reason I asked the question about whether or not the man should have done something different is because some of the bigger media outlets reporting it have been critical of the man who responded, saying he should have used "less violent means", such as attempting to disarm, punching the man, or even running away. I think that logic is idiocy, because as the man said, he didn't know what was being pushed into his side, and thought it a knife or gun. So personally, I think his reaction was 100% appropriate to the situation, and if he had died or been paralyzed-he was shot about an inch from his spine-I would shed no tears for him.

So while I'm responding to Norcal here, the question is for anyone:

What are your thoughts on the idea some media outlets and 'experts' who have weighed in on the victim's actions have suggested-shooting the kid twice-was too extreme?

In answer to your question, it's flat-out bullshit that anyone would think that the man carrying the concealed weapon went too far. As long as the shots were consecutive (i.e., one came immediately after the other), then there's nothing wrong here.

As a point of contrast, there was a case a while back in which two young men attempted to rob a pharmacy in Oklahoma City. In response, a 59-year-old pharmacist shot one of the men twice and then chased the second man away. When he came back, he took out another firearm and shot the first, incapacitated young man five more times. NOW THAT IS TOO EXTREME AND CONSTITUTES MURDER, especially if one of these subsequent five shots ended up killing the robber. Here's a link to the story:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/oklahoma-city-pharmacist-jerome-ersland-found-guilty-of-murder-in-killing-of-suspect/

 

[Slash-LN]

I'm not even going to try and disagree with this, because to me, it's as simple as this. If I was carrying my gun, which I rarely do, I would have shot the bastard without a second thought, and not felt bad for a moment.

The reason I asked the question about whether or not the man should have done something different is because some of the bigger media outlets reporting it have been critical of the man who responded, saying he should have used "less violent means", such as attempting to disarm, punching the man, or even running away. I think that logic is idiocy, because as the man said, he didn't know what was being pushed into his side, and thought it a knife or gun. So personally, I think his reaction was 100% appropriate to the situation, and if he had died or been paralyzed-he was shot about an inch from his spine-I would shed no tears for him.

So while I'm responding to Norcal here, the question is for anyone:

What are your thoughts on the idea some media outlets and 'experts' who have weighed in on the victim's actions have suggested-shooting the kid twice-was too extreme?

They're idiots. Every single one of them. For all the guy knew his life was in danger.

I've never been in a situation where I needed to shoot someone so I can't say what was going through the guy's head but like I had said in my other post these things usually happen when the attacker is with a group of people.

So if this guy throws a punch to defend himself there's a very good chance that pack mentality would have taken over and the group would have attacked him.

It's easy for the media and so called experts to say what this guy should have or should not have done but they weren't in his position.

 

[Spidey Revivey]

I'm going to go ahead and go out on a limb here and state that most of us now know that "The Knockout Game" is as real as reptile people:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/knockout.asp

http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/knockout-game-victim-its-not-real/?cat_orig=us

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/26/knockout-game-myth/3729635/

But with that being said, random acts of violence are very real. Just not in the trendy way we go about viewing things now. And if such a trend was real, we would have every right to defend ourselves from our attacker, regardless on what "game" they play.