"Carry Rotation"

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have yet to hear someone reporting that they were concerned about legalities in the midst of a true life-or-death scenario. In fact, I am of the opinion that if one is truly thinking about legalities in the middle of a scenario, that is probably strong evidence that they shouldn't shoot. It's when all you're thinking about is how to save your life that shooting is justified.
Click to expand...

I have at the shop a long counter about four three and a half feet tall and about two feet wide. One of the very few times someone has actually threatened me at work was on a Saturday while I was working alone. It was part of a few minute conversation that took about twenty seconds in to realize that the three people in here (two guys and a lady who did not add up to 400lbs between them) were high on something. One of them made the comment that "it isn't safe to work here alone" and put his hands face down on the counter - I expected he was going to try to jump it.

I recall distinctly thinking in that moment that I had never prepared to fight someone who was standing on a counter in front of me and that ground training was not relevant.

My "natural" reaction as I thought this was to take two or three steps back and put my hand on the pistol on my belt - which I am certain made it clear I was carrying because it moved the concealing shirt I was wearing.

Conversation ended, they decided to leave, I wished them good luck. Talked to an officer later in the day about it and offered him the security footageHe declined and basically shrugged it off and went with the "no harm no foul" theory.

The odd part for me is that even as I moved my mind decided to focus on a very specific bare spot in training.
 
If a group then starts to follow me or moves to intercept me, that's not completely unexpected--it's exactly what I was looking for.
Click to expand...

Words matter, more than most people realize, and words that are easily taken one way in casual conversation can mean something else, or be made to seem like they mean something else, entirely, in court.

I believe the speaker intended to tell us the kind of behavior he was being alert to spot, so that he could avoid trouble.

HOWEVER, the exact words he used, read aloud in court would also support a prosecutor's claim that he intentionally sought out an encounter.

In his own words, "it's exactly what I was looking for!"
(note the use of italics here, to change then emphasis, while the words are still exactly the same, it will sound different, and give a different impression.

For an excellent example of this, I recommend the movie "My Cousin Vinny". (coarse language not suitable for younger viewers).

There are two scenes that show the principle I am referring to very well, I think, The first is where the kid confesses to the sheriff "I did it", thinking he was confessing to stealing a can of tuna from a convenience store. Unknown to the kid, the store clerk was shot and killed, shortly after he left, and the Sherriff believes the kid is confessing to the murder. Sherriff asks the kid, "at what point did you shoot the clerk?"

The kid is amazed, confused, and surprised, and answers with what from his tone of voice is obvious disbelief, "I shot the clerk????"

In a later scene the Sherriff, in court reads the statement, in a flat monotone, turning what was said as a question into a statement. "I shot the clerk."

Same exact words, two vastly different meanings. Don't EVER count on the context of anything you say being heard by the jury. Only count on the words you use being heard, shown in what ever light best aids the prosecutor's case.

Choose what you say, carefully. It can come back to bite you.
 
Why would you step back? Hands on counter, preparing to jump?

Step up to the counter the minute he puts his weight on his hands, cup your hand behind his wrist, pull forward! Your right hand, behind his right wrist.

When Mr. athlete falls awkwardly on counter top, shove him off it.

No muss, no fuss.

Choice #2. In order to spring on to counter, he has to shift his weight above his hands.
IE his face is in the center, more or less of your counter top. And moving towards you? You have now broken his nose! Right cross, straight left, take your pick. His forward motion helps the punch.

Use strong detergent to clean the blood up.
 
Last edited:
44 AMP said:
In his own words, "it's exactly what I was looking for!"
Click to expand...
Those are my words, but not all of my words: they have been removed from context, and that makes them easier to misinterpret (should one choose to).

My words were:
"If a group then starts to follow me or moves to intercept me, that's not completely unexpected--it's exactly what I was looking for.
"If that group then decides to attack (despite my changing direction away from them), that's also not completely unexpected; that possibility is why I decided to go armed in the first place, and why I went to condition orange."

That's a clear statement that I am alert to my surroundings, and LOOKING FOR signs of an impending attack precisely so I can change direction AWAY from the potential attackers; and that I go armed because I realize that simple avoidance may not always be enough to prevent that attack.
44 AMP said:
I believe the speaker intended to tell us the kind of behavior he was being alert to spot, so that he could avoid trouble.
Click to expand...
Of course. I hope that the reason that you believe that (besides simply your generous spirit of giving everyone the benefit of the doubt) is that I made that clear, by both the context of that remark, and by the context provided by my other remarks at TFL.

A. The context of that post. I wrote the words you quoted in response to an assertion that "It is most likely that the confrontation will be completely unexpected." I was therefore talking about my alertness, and why I believe it is therefore not true that, when I am confronted (as in "confrontation") it will "most likely" be "completely unexpected."

B. The context of my other remarks in this forum:

--About what to do when a vehicle trespasses on your property:
"Umm, maybe:
"Call 911
"Videotape (be sure to get license plate if possible) from safe distance
"If they come after you...retreat as far as safely possible; then respond appropriately to any threat if forced to do so"

--About the proper attitude toward shooting in self-defense
"Originally Posted by Lohman446
"'I did not want to shoot and I only shot to stop the attack'
"Yes. The attack that I believed I could not safely retreat from, and that I believed would otherwise cause me grave injury or death.
"I think that sentiment, engraved on your heart as it were, is as important to your self-defense as to your legal defense."

And: "I would NEVER choose to use a round based on its being 'more lethal'...
"I would shoot to stop...
"No way, no how would I shoot to kill. Ever."

--About my previous experience in confrontations:
"I know how many times I've been approached in a threatening way, how many times I've been attacked...and how many times I've been surprised." Indicates that we're not talking zero experience here; and yet, somehow:

"...I've never had to fire a gun in self-defense..."

Perhaps it should be obvious that being alert is a violence-prevention strategy; and that by being alert I give myself the option of avoiding trouble before I'm even sure there IS any trouble; avoiding it well before an attack is imminent. And that's why I choose to argue the benefits of being alert (as opposed to implying that being alert doesn't matter because, no matter what, "It is most likely that the confrontation will be completely unexpected").

As one of my instructors mentioned, having to use lethal force to defend yourself is a failure: it means you are in mortal danger, and that EVERYTHING that you did or could have done to prevent that has failed.

Or, as Rory Miller puts it, self-defense is recovery from stupidity or bad luck. Self-defense is that short list of things that may get you out alive when you are already screwed.

Sounds to me very much like a self-defense situation is something I should work hard to avoid.

Hope that's clarified things, for any future plaintiff's attorneys and DAs out there.
:)

Wow. It can sure take a long time to defend oneself around here. Not sure if your using my words for your example perhaps might appear to support the notion, "Why worry about 'iffy' modifications, since even a completely innocent remark or action can or will be twisted into something nefarious?"
 
Last edited:
Those are my words, but not all of my words: they have been removed from context, and that makes them easier to misinterpret (should one choose to).
Click to expand...

Having some, but not all of your words used, and taken out of context WAS MY POINT.

IF you are ever so unfortunate that you do wind up in court, the opposing side will use any and everything to support their side of the story, and its is up to your defense to include what they leave out. They are under NO legal obligation to include all your remarks, OR put any of your remarks in proper context. Remember that while witnesses swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, the prosecutor DOES NOT.

Wow. It can sure take a long time to defend oneself around here. Not sure if your using my words for your example perhaps might appear to support the notion, "Why worry about 'iffy' modifications, since even a completely innocent remark or action can or will be twisted into something nefarious?"
Click to expand...

Again, if you think its tough defending yourself around here, you really don't want to have to do it in court.

As to "iffy modifications" (assuming you mean some modification to your firearm), its your business to worry, or not, but if it's "iffy" why would you do it in the first place??

I don't see any sense in giving the guy taking shots at you MORE AMMO. Even if he keeps missing, the more shots he gets, the worse your odds. (and I'm talking about verbal shots at you in court, here, not actual gunfire)
 
...WAS MY POINT.
Click to expand...
Then IMO the point your really drove home was, why bother trying to do everything straight and by the book, when even if you do everything above board by a good margin, there's still so many dishonest lawyers around who will attack you in court with their lies. And you, in response, will have to show them for the liars they are: the courtroom version of "stand your ground".

Hey, it's a good point to make. That's a fair description IMO of exactly what the prosecutors tried to pull in the Zimmerman-Martin case (though, of course, Zimmerman didn't have to take the stand).
you really don't want to have to do it in court.
Click to expand...
You know, you may be finally beginning to understand me.

You're right: I REALLY do NOT want to defend myself in court. In fact, I REALLY do NOT want to get into any altercation at all. So, I REALLY do NOT want to get into a situation where I'm attacked with deadly force, and I REALLY do NOT want to use deadly force to defend myself.

However, someday some violent miscreant(s) attacking me might force me to do what I REALLY did NOT want to do, despite my best efforts to stay alert, and avoid, and get away. And then some miscreant with a law degree attacking me with lies might also force me to do what I REALLY did NOT want to do.

I knew all that already.

I guess, compared to all that, the fact that I also REALLY did NOT want my character called into question by some guy on the internet distorting my words--just so he could make (he thinks) some point--pales in comparison, huh? What you REALLY did NOT want has nothing to do with whether or nor someone attacks you for no reason.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top