At what point do you draw?
- Thread starter baddarryl
- Start date
- Status
allaroundhunter
New member
Fair enough, it would appear that I did just that... My bad 
easyliven88
New member
Check this link out...I have to skirt the outer edges of Detroit to get to work so this was a no brainer...
http://www.gungoddess.com/steering-wheel-column-holster-mount/
http://www.gungoddess.com/steering-wheel-column-holster-mount/
buckhorn_cortez
New member
About 30 years ago, I was sitting in my truck in a food store parking lot waiting for my wife to get a few things for a trip. I saw a very large (6'-3" or more, and 260+ pounds) drunk working the parking lot trying to get money for liquor.
I had the windows rolled down in my truck because it was 80+ degrees. He saw me sitting in my truck and started walking toward me. I rolled up the windows about 2/3 of the way.
He started banging on the glass on the driver's side demanding money. I asked him to go away as I was not going to give him money for liquor. Then he shoved his arm through the open portion of the window attempting to grab me. I got my Walther P5, pointed it at him and told him that I thought the best thing he could do was go away.
He took one look at the pistol pointed at him, jerked his arm out of the window and high tailed it to another part of the parking lot.
As far as I'm concerned there was no other course of action in the short period of time this all took place. It's easy to second guess "what's best" given lots of time to look at all of the alternatives - but in the 30 second period that all of this transpired, there's really not a lot of time for analysis.
I'm sure lots of situations fall into that same category - not a lot of time for analysis - you just react to the situation.
In my case, it all worked out for the best for both of us.
I had the windows rolled down in my truck because it was 80+ degrees. He saw me sitting in my truck and started walking toward me. I rolled up the windows about 2/3 of the way.
He started banging on the glass on the driver's side demanding money. I asked him to go away as I was not going to give him money for liquor. Then he shoved his arm through the open portion of the window attempting to grab me. I got my Walther P5, pointed it at him and told him that I thought the best thing he could do was go away.
He took one look at the pistol pointed at him, jerked his arm out of the window and high tailed it to another part of the parking lot.
As far as I'm concerned there was no other course of action in the short period of time this all took place. It's easy to second guess "what's best" given lots of time to look at all of the alternatives - but in the 30 second period that all of this transpired, there's really not a lot of time for analysis.
I'm sure lots of situations fall into that same category - not a lot of time for analysis - you just react to the situation.
In my case, it all worked out for the best for both of us.
My opinion comes from discussions with multiple prosecutors, DA's, and ADA's. if you are getting 'robbed' something we haven't really defined situationally, (i'll assume someone trespassing, taking your stuff, who you are not within a few arms reach of)you see a gun in the thief's belt, so you draw and fire upon seeing it(even if he 'motions' for it) you are in for a legal battle you may very well lose. Regardless of what people say would be a legal use of your firearm.
Last year a local business owner shot a man 'going for his gun in his truck' after threatening the owner. months after the business owners arrest, he was found to be in the clear, but the jail time, legal fees, and lengthy trial by jury (which can go anyway), speak to what I'm trying to get across.
Last year a local business owner shot a man 'going for his gun in his truck' after threatening the owner. months after the business owners arrest, he was found to be in the clear, but the jail time, legal fees, and lengthy trial by jury (which can go anyway), speak to what I'm trying to get across.
Last edited by a moderator:
allaroundhunter
New member
'Going for a gun in his truck' and having a gun in easy reach in a waistband are two VERY different things.
What we have asked for are cases that prove the points that you have made, because I, for one, don't think they exist. I have also spoken with attorneys, criminal prosecutors, and even judges on what their definition of 'immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm' is and it most certainly is not what you are trying to show.
That is the wording from the Texas Penal code regarding the justifiable use of deadly force. Is it verbatim what other states have? No, but it is a good indication and, thankfully, the word 'imminent' does not take new meaning when we cross state lines.
What we have asked for are cases that prove the points that you have made, because I, for one, don't think they exist. I have also spoken with attorneys, criminal prosecutors, and even judges on what their definition of 'immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm' is and it most certainly is not what you are trying to show.
That is the wording from the Texas Penal code regarding the justifiable use of deadly force. Is it verbatim what other states have? No, but it is a good indication and, thankfully, the word 'imminent' does not take new meaning when we cross state lines.
Last edited by a moderator:
You need to start with much simpler questions the next time you talk to them.
For example, robbery is defined in the law, there's no need to redefine it here, nor is it productive, especially given that your attempt at a definition is badly in error. Trespassing and simple theft are NOT robbery and while armed robbery is virtually always justification for the use of deadly force in self-defense, simple theft and trespassing are virtually never sufficient justification.
If you see an armed person committing trespass or simple theft and you use deadly force against them with no other circumstances to justify it, you're almost certainly in a lot of trouble--it's going to cost you some legal fees, even if you avoid jail. Shooting someone who is committing armed robbery is an ENTIRELY different story.
That said, if a person is trespassing or committing simple theft and starts to go for his weapon when you see him, you would certainly be justified in drawing your own firearm if there is no other reasonable course of action. That is true because a reasonable person would consider his move towards his firearm to constitute the start of a deadly force attack on your person. He has means (firearm), motive (desire to escape/cover his crime) and he certainly has opportunity (can harm you if he wishes). Those three things together with his action towards his weapon are certainly sufficient circumstances for a person to assume that a deadly force attack is either in progress or imminent.
Psychedelic Bang
New member
Recently I too had a guy come out of nowhere and pop up next to my driver side window asking for money!! (Must be the economy or something)
I'm grateful I am not trigger happy. I also do not spook easily.
Unfortunately, I can think of several times in my life, where I probably could have drawn but did not have a gun. I would say about, "4 of these," I was a minor... But I grew up in early 1990s NYC. Mugged twice at knifepoint, and attacked pretty badly two other times.
The other time, where I probably could have drawed, I was traveling in the UK so.. "no gun."
I think the moral of this all is, "There are a lot of situations where you can draw. However, those same situations can be survived without drawing." You can get out a lot of street trouble without a gun.
I believe the time to draw is when: There is no other option. You want it clear to you and a jury of your peers that you had no other choice. Life or death.
I'm grateful I am not trigger happy. I also do not spook easily.
Unfortunately, I can think of several times in my life, where I probably could have drawn but did not have a gun. I would say about, "4 of these," I was a minor... But I grew up in early 1990s NYC. Mugged twice at knifepoint, and attacked pretty badly two other times.
The other time, where I probably could have drawed, I was traveling in the UK so.. "no gun."
I think the moral of this all is, "There are a lot of situations where you can draw. However, those same situations can be survived without drawing." You can get out a lot of street trouble without a gun.
I believe the time to draw is when: There is no other option. You want it clear to you and a jury of your peers that you had no other choice. Life or death.
If I were to draw on every homeless person asking for money I would need a gun mount on my window. Drawing and threatening deadly force without an articulable justification can be considered assault.
Sounds like you handled it well. Should he have reached in, made threats or attempted to enter the vehicle, then I would say "game on".
Drawing and threatening deadly force without an articulable justification can be considered assault. Sounds like you handled it well. Should he have reached in, made threats or attempted to enter the vehicle, then I would say "game on".
One thing I have found common in my quest for answers on the proper use of deadly force, is that authorities, when giving advise to a stranger, almost always offer extremely conservative advice.
My advice to you is to read the law for yourself. In Florida a person is justified in using deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another OR to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
So if a DA or anyone else for that matter tells me that I can't use deadly force (firing at the robber with a gun in his waistband who is moving to get that gun) they are wrong according to the law.
Just because you can survive or may survive or the bad guy with a knife didn't kill you, doesn't mean I have to take a beating or leave the decision to let me live or die up to that bad guy. You were lucky. I'm not so lucky and have never been lucky. Thankfully the law still allows us to prevent such life threatening attacks, should we as an individual choose to do so.
Around 80 percent of civilians shot with handguns survive. Would you allow someone to shoot you during a robbery just because the overwhelming majority survive the same situation without fighting back with lethal force?
Psychedelic Bang
New member
I said nothing about taking a beating before you draw. In fact I said, "those were times where I probably could have drawed."
The laws vary by state.
"Lucky," is incorrect. If you are walking to your car, and a thug comes to carjack you, and the thug already has a gun in his hand, even if you have your gun on you, you will need a lot more than a draw to get yourself out of that situation. You will need to reverse the odds from a disadvantage.
That's a lot more than luck.
The laws vary by state.
"Lucky," is incorrect. If you are walking to your car, and a thug comes to carjack you, and the thug already has a gun in his hand, even if you have your gun on you, you will need a lot more than a draw to get yourself out of that situation. You will need to reverse the odds from a disadvantage.
That's a lot more than luck.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
It doesn't help us to think of the use of lethal force as a "choice." If one resorts to the use of lethal force it should be under circumstance which made its use a necessity.daddyo said:
Now let's look at the basic legal reality of the use of force in self defense.
- Our society takes a dim view of the threat or use of force and/or intentionally hurting or killing another human. In every State the threat or use of force and/or intentionally hurting or killing another human is prima facie (on its face) a crime of one sort or another.
- However, for hundreds of years our law has recognized that there are some circumstances in which such an intentional act of violence against another human might be legally justified.
- Exactly what would be necessary to establish that violence against someone else was justified will depend on (1) the applicable law where the event takes place; and (2) exactly what happened and how it happened, which will have to be judged on the basis of evidence gathered after the fact.
- Someone who initiated a conflict will almost never be able to legally justify an act of violence against another.
- If you threaten physical harm to another person, if you use force against another person, if you intentionally hurt another person, if you intentionally kill another person, you will have performed an act that is a crime of one sort or another.
- You may try to avoid criminal liability by claiming that your act was legally justified.
- If you claim justification, you will be admitting the elements of the crime, i. e., that you intentionally performed the act.
- You will then have to establish your justification and be able to articulate why you did what you did, and why a reasonable person would have determined the otherwise criminal act was justified.
- You may try to avoid criminal liability by claiming that your act was legally justified.
- However, for hundreds of years our law has recognized that there are some circumstances in which such an intentional act of violence against another human might be legally justified.
- The amount of force an actor my justifiably use in self defense will depend on the level of the threat.
- Under the laws of most States, lethal force may be justified when a reasonable person in like circumstance would conclude that a use of lethal force is necessary to prevent the otherwise unavoidable, imminent death or grave bodily injury to an innocent. And to establish that, the actor claiming justified use of lethal force would need to show that the person against whom the lethal force was used reasonably had --
- Ability, i. e., the power to deliver force sufficient to cause death or grave bodily harm;
- Opportunity, i. e., the assailant was capable of immediately deploying such force; and
- put an innocent in Jeopardy, i. e., the assailant was acting in such a manner that a reasonable and prudent person would conclude that he had the intent to kill or cripple.
- Ability, i. e., the power to deliver force sufficient to cause death or grave bodily harm;
- "Ability" doesn't necessarily require a weapon. Disparity of force, e. g., a large, young, strong person attacking a small, old, frail person, or force of numbers, could show "Ability."
- "Opportunity" could be established by showing proximity, lack of barriers or the like.
- "Jeopardy" (intent) could be inferred from overt acts (e. g., violent approach) and/or statements of intent.
- And unless the standard justifying the use of lethal force is met, use of some lesser level of violence might be legally justified to prevent a harmful or offensive, unconsented to contact by another person.
- Under the laws of most States, lethal force may be justified when a reasonable person in like circumstance would conclude that a use of lethal force is necessary to prevent the otherwise unavoidable, imminent death or grave bodily injury to an innocent. And to establish that, the actor claiming justified use of lethal force would need to show that the person against whom the lethal force was used reasonably had --
- If you have thus used violence against another person, your actions will be investigated as a crime, because on the surface that's what it is.
- Sometimes there will be sufficient evidence concerning what happened and how it happened readily apparent to the police for the police and/or prosecutor to quickly conclude that your actions were justified. If that's the case, you will be quickly exonerated of criminal responsibility, although in many States you might have to still deal with a civil suit.
- If the evidence is not clear, you may well be arrested and perhaps even charged with a criminal offense. If that happens you will need to affirmatively assert that you were defending yourself and put forth evidence that you at least prima facie satisfied the applicable standard justifying your act of violence.
- Of course, if your use of force against another human took place in or immediately around your home, your justification for your use of violence could be more readily apparent or easier to establish -- maybe.
- Again, it still depends on what happened and how it happened. For example, was the person you shot a stranger, an acquaintance, a friend, a business associate or relative? Did the person you shot forcibly break into your home or was he invited? Was the contact tumultuous from the beginning, or did things begin peaceably and turn violent, how and why?
- In the case of a stranger forcibly breaking into your home, your justification for the use of lethal force would probably be obvious. The laws of most States provide some useful protections for someone attacked in his home, which protections make it easier and a more certain matter for your acts to be found justified.
- It could however be another matter to establish your justification if you have to use force against someone you invited into your home in a social context which later turns violent.
- It could also be another matter if you left the safety of your house to confront someone on your property.
- Again, it still depends on what happened and how it happened. For example, was the person you shot a stranger, an acquaintance, a friend, a business associate or relative? Did the person you shot forcibly break into your home or was he invited? Was the contact tumultuous from the beginning, or did things begin peaceably and turn violent, how and why?
- Sometimes there will be sufficient evidence concerning what happened and how it happened readily apparent to the police for the police and/or prosecutor to quickly conclude that your actions were justified. If that's the case, you will be quickly exonerated of criminal responsibility, although in many States you might have to still deal with a civil suit.
- Good, general overviews of the topic can be found at UseofForce.us and in this booklet by Marty Hayes at the Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network.
Bullcamp82834
New member
Recommended Reading:
In The Gravest Extreme by Massad Ayoob
In The Gravest Extreme by Massad Ayoob
You said.......
........my take on this quote is that you don't feel the need for a gun. Why else mention that many of the situations where a gun was justified in being presented but none was presented, are survivable. Then you go on to explain how you were robberd at knife point............IMO that qualifies as your life being held in the hands of the knife holder......and beaten pretty badly in two others....also life threatening IMO seeing as a single blow has killed many full grown men.
So I simply explained that you were lucky. Guess what???? Your robbers/muggers didn't kill you and that is lucky for you. Many innocent folks die every year from the same beating and/or a robber who decided to use the knife.
If you are walking to your car and a thug comes to carjack you and you allowed him to approach you with a gun in his hand without a response then you deserve to be at his mercy. At that point compliance is probably the best course of action.
Frank, I didn't mean it the way you interpreted it. I meant that some folks choose not to fight back. The choice they make is to be a good victim.
The choice we make is to defend ourselves with whatever force necessary.
I agree that the use of deadly force is not chosen but rather forced upon us by the circumstances at hand. Sorry I didn't make that clearer.
Psychedelic Bang
New member
If somebody comes to carjack you; most likely, they approached so quickly, that they already had a gun drawn before you noticed them.
As for getting robbed at knifepoint. The first occasion I was age 10, and the second I was age 13. This happened, "whilst growing up."
I hate to break it to you, but most prey for criminals are going to be, "the most vulnerable people."
I am about 2nd Amendments Rights. -- As far as self defense goes: after all other options are exhausted, I will return deadly force. ** This is how I wish we would train our police officers. Why should I expect any less from myself?
Vulnerability has nothing to do with saying that most folks survive an encounter that lethal force was justified but not used. That is putting your life in their hands.
As for the carjacker.......its called situational awareness. There is no most likely. I may be more aware than you and less aware that another. If I'm being aware there will be no sneak attack from a gun weilding foe period.
Psychedelic Bang
New member
Bad assumption imho.
If you ever need to draw when somebody attacks you, the attack will be be sudden, aggressive, and catch you off guard. The whole thing from start to finish may take place in 8 - 15 seconds. Most of the people who will commit this type of violent crime have already been in and out of jail. They have street experience, they know situations better than you do.
Its not a competition to me. There is always somebody quicker, faster, better.
spacemanspiff
New member
You draw down and open fire whenever your conscience tells you too. Whether or not you are protected by your states laws will be determined by someone other than me.
As for me and my response to potential threats as described there, I would like to think that my response would be to go to the gun as a last possible option. If the gun is not pointed at me it might make more sense for me to give up my wallet. Live to face another day. Thats just me, and my mindset.
When I actually find myself in such a situation is when I will find out what I actually wind up doing.
- Status