At what point do you draw?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I had a large belligerent street bum approach me in an ally I was walking through in Detroit for work. It was daytime but on Saturday morning when this part of downtown D is no longer hopping with office workers. He was almost shouting that he was a vet and needed some money. I was backing up saying sorry I had none but he continued at a quick pace towards me. Walking backwards facing him I came up to a concrete like structure by the alley and proceeded to lift my shirt up to access the grip of my sp101 just in case. At that exact moment he turned and walked off the other direction.
 
My point, exactly. The threat "subsided" without a shot.

No draw necessary. In the view of an anti-gunner on a jury, that's guilty.
Click to expand...
So once a person draws they have to shoot, or they're guilty of drawing when it wasn't necessary? That is not only incorrect, it is absolutely ridiculous.

It's certainly possible (probable, even) to have, not only justification to draw, but also justification to shoot, and then have the threat vacate the premises at top speed when the firearm begins to make its presence known. By your logic, the defender would have to go ahead and shoot the fleeing attacker to prove justification for the draw or he'd be guilty of drawing unnecessarily.
 
Jammer Six said:
My point, exactly. The threat "subsided" without a shot.

No draw necessary. In the view of an anti-gunner on a jury, that's guilty.
Click to expand...

Um, what? Not only is that wrong, it is WAY wrong.

Do you know how many times gun owners legally draw a weapon in self defense and yet don't have to shoot every year? Wanna know how many I them are found guilty of something to the extent of 'drawing without justification'?...
 
That can be especially true in areas where anything perceived as "disrespect" can make someone feel like they have to fight or be perceived as weak themselves.
Click to expand...
I would never assume the person I am talking to won't react in that way. Being polite and confident is the correct route in all of these situations. Minimal polite interaction.

I wouldn't pull unless I intend to use it or I am facing multiple opponents. With multiple people they may think they can easily take you without risk. The only way to make them think otherwise may be to let them know you are armed. With one person, even if they are sure they will win a fight, they probably aren't sure they won't get hurt in a fight. If you make it clear you will fight they will almost certainly back off.
 
I'm surprised so many on this forum have forgotten one of the basic rules of gun use: Never point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot.

Leo's operate by a different set of laws than civilians do. If a civilian takes a gun out and points it at someone, it is (at best) brandishing a weapon, something you are going to jail for.

In the civilian world using a gun, or any deadly force, to defend yourself must be based on the IMMENIENT theat of death or bodily harm. It's not enough that the other guy had a knife on him, that knife must be drawn back ready to strike. If a robber has a gun in his belt, and you shoot him, you will go to jail. The robbers gun would have to be locked, loaded, and aimed...an IMMINIENT THREAT. Didn't everyone have to take a concealed carry class?
 
Sierra280 said:
In the civilian world using a gun, or any deadly force, to defend yourself must be based on the IMMENIENT theat of death or bodily harm. It's not enough that the other guy had a knife on him, that knife must be drawn back ready to strike. If a robber has a gun in his belt, and you shoot him, you will go to jail. The robbers gun would have to be locked, loaded, and aimed...an IMMINIENT THREAT. Didn't everyone have to take a concealed carry class?
Click to expand...

Wrong on several levels. If someone has drawn a knife on me, I am legally allowed to draw my weapon. I do not have to wait for him to draw it back to strike at me, nor do I have to let him get within striking range. To shoot, perhaps, but not to draw.

If a robber has a gun in his belt, then I can draw. I do not in any way have I prove that it was locked and loaded. The fact that he has a gun and him robbing a location has been shown to be reasonable assumption that the gun is loaded and any civilian gun owner or LEO can react regardless of the actual condition of the gun.

To shoot the knife wielding attacker, then yes, he must be advancing on me. But I do not have to wait until he is advancing o draw.

To shoot the robber, he must be trying to pull the gun out from his waistband - but I do not have to wait for him to aim it.


If you want to follow your own advice, then go for it. But it is far from correct and is no way a way to win a life or death fight.
 
I don't entirely disagree with all around hunter, but if you actually fire the weapon you have out , you might find your local DA does disagree with you. That's the point I was trying to make.
 
Sierra280 said:
I don't entirely disagree with all around hunter, but if you actually fire the weapon you have out , you might find your local DA does disagree with you. That's the point I was trying to make.
Click to expand...

Sierra, at ANY point that you fire a gun at a human being the DA disagreeing with you is possible. However, what you describe as 'imminent' is actually much further than you should allow a threat to escalate before drawing.
 
If someone is robbing you and has a gun in his belt - you cannot use your firearm?

Well, please quote the appropriate laws to support than opinion. I doubt that view will be supported.
 
Sure you can use your firearm! But you better find a really good lawyer who can prove that a holstered(or in the belt) firearm was an imminient threat.
 
Didn't answer the question I posed. Also, the guy is robbing you in this discussion. I suggest that if a person approaches you and says Give Me Your Dough and exposes a holstered weapon - your opinion that he has to draw it and aim it is incorrect.

Please provide statutes that support your view.
 
Sierra280 said:
Sure you can use your firearm! But you better find a really good lawyer who can prove that a holstered(or in the belt) firearm was an imminient threat.
Click to expand...

They don't have to. The fact that he was robbing me is reason enough for me to draw my firearm.

If he then motions to his firearm or does anything threatening whatsoever then I am perfectly justified in shooting.

It seems as if you are not understanding what exactly constitutes an 'imminent threat'. Nor the fact that robbery (be it armed or not) can legally be met with lethal force (or the threat of it) most anywhere in the US.

If someone comes up to me and demands my money, then I do not have to wait to determine if he is armed or not to react with the force required to keep my money and stay alive.
 
Last edited:
One of the main things I am reminded of by this conversation is that responsibly carrying a weapon requires training, awareness, and maturity. The decision to draw or shoot (two very different things) often has to be made very quickly with little time to deliberate. Avoiding confrontations, or keeping one's head when that doesn't work is easier done here on the interweb than in reality. Walking, running, or driving away from a potentially deadly situation, or drawing a weapon to stop an attack without having to fire it are good outcomes. These choices often require speed, self discipline, and control with lives hanging in the balance.

One-answer-fits-all solutions to self defense scenarios are as useful as those same solutions in automobiles or health care.
 
Last edited:
I'm surprised so many on this forum have forgotten one of the basic rules of gun use: Never point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot.

Leo's operate by a different set of laws than civilians do. If a civilian takes a gun out and points it at someone, it is (at best) brandishing a weapon, something you are going to jail for.

In the civilian world using a gun, or any deadly force, to defend yourself must be based on the IMMENIENT theat of death or bodily harm. It's not enough that the other guy had a knife on him, that knife must be drawn back ready to strike. If a robber has a gun in his belt, and you shoot him, you will go to jail. The robbers gun would have to be locked, loaded, and aimed...an IMMINIENT THREAT. Didn't everyone have to take a concealed carry class?
Click to expand...

If I draw I intend to shoot........if....... the bad guy continues whatever caused me to draw. So at this point the rules for safe gun handling are out the window.

If a civilian takes a gun out and points it at someone.......who is about to cause them death or grave bodily injury.......he or she is guilty of nothing. It is still legal in most of the U.S. to defend yourself from violent attack. Now if a civilian pulls and points a gun for no legal reason, then they are guilty of aggrivated assault with a firearm punishable in Florida by a minimum mandatory 3 years in prison.

Food for thought on your robber with a gun in his waistband. If you are of the mindset that you are only in imminent danger when the gun is being raised then perhaps it is you who should take a class....a defensive firearms training class. Study the Tueller Drill for your knife scenario. Understand that a human being can talk, fight, and run for up to 20 seconds with a completely destroyed heart. Then think about how long it takes a knife weilding attacker to cover 21ft or for a man to draw a pistol from his waist band. Now its time to rethink your response to either threat before you or even worst, your family, are victimized by false information.
 
If someone says "give me your wallet" and you see a gun in their waistband, a reasonable and prudent person should conclude that the firearm is the tool they plan to use to gain compliance should you choose not to hand over your wallet; or, as in some cases, you do comply and get shot regardless.

To display a firearm during the commission of a robbery is the same as holding the gun to someone's head. The use of deadly force is being implied by the criminal and therefore deadly force is authorized to resist the assault. To believe otherwise is foolish.

Rather than going for your own gun, you would be better off going for their gun... unless they were at a distance to where you could run in the opposite direction and hope they don't shoot you in the back... or you believe you can outdraw them.
 
Sure you can use your firearm! But you better find a really good lawyer who can prove that a holstered(or in the belt) firearm was an imminient threat.
Click to expand...

Easy to do if that was necessary as the cemetary is filled with guys who thought like that.

Once a man has made known his intent to cause death or grave bodily injury then he only needs the ability and opportunity to cause said injury.

Example if Mike Tyson says he will beat you to death if you don't give up your jewelry, you are perfectly justified in preparing your defense to this IMMINENT threat BEFORE Tyson gets close enough to carry out that threat. You will of course need to wait until he attempts to get within striking distance, which is his ability to cause DOGBI, before discharging your firearm. You don't have to wait for him to start beating you before offering up your defense.

Imminent is defined by Marriam Websters as ready to take place; especially: hanging threateningly over one's head.

A robber with a gun in his waistband is certainly imminent by definition, completely an imminent threat by every known source of information available, and extremely imminent by any trained firearms training expert.
 
Daddyo, in your example Mike Tyson simply closing the distance between you and him after you ordering him to stay back can be seen as threatening. He doesn't have to be within striking distance or it to be imminent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top