CCW kept me from becoming a victim

These sorts of situation make me consider pepper spray for the weak hand.
Click to expand...
You know, I used to think the same way...until I realized that pepper spray is only good at 5-10 feet, and if they are a true threat, that is waaaay too close.
They got way too close to you - 10 feet and you have about just over a second to react. Remember at 21 feet - it takes a guy about 2.1 seconds to get to you.
Click to expand...
No. Football players run a 4 second 40 yard. Ten yards (30 feet) = one second. Twenty-one feet would be well under one second. Not every attacker is a pro football player, but many/most are young and in decent shape. (Google or Wiki: Teuller Drill).
Then think again about pepper spray and 10 feet...

Do not underestimate your potential adversary.

Bottom line--you did just fine. If the fuel was already flowing, I might have thought about giving them a quick gasoline dousing (nozzle in left hand, .45 in right) probably better range and better "pattern" than the pepper spray, arguably more effective/intimidating, and only $1.50 per gallon. Might make identifying the suspect easier too... "Yes, officer, four young males, left in a black Explorer, two of them smell like gasoline; the inside of the vehicle, likewise. Hope none of them is a smoker..."
 
Last edited:
"A superior gunman is best defined as one who uses his superior judgment in order to keep himself out of situations that would require the use of his superior skills."

I'd say you worked it out pretty well, no one got hurt. But your experience was pretty illustrative of the fact that modern street hoods often show no fear of firearms- they've often been shot, shot at, and threatened before, often many times, and they just aren't as afraid of a gun as a lot of people think they should be.

Try talking to the best criminal defense attorney you can find in your jurisdiction. I've found a good way to pick one, I think- call the local bail bondsmen and ask who they would use if they got in a jam. Set up an appointment with the suggested attorney, have a chat, ask your questions, and keep his or her card in your wallet for future reference. Most of the time, first consults are free. And it's worth an hour's charge to know what you need to know, IMHO, if you get billed for the time.

You need to have your questions clearly answered, because you don't need to have to struggle with the 'can I/can't I' stuff when something is happening on the street, in your home or wherever. In other words, you don't need to have to worry about Problem Two (potential legal issues) when Problem One (an impending gunfight) is staring you in the face. You need to be able to focus on Problem One exclusively.

The best training I have had in legal issues and self defense so far was Skip Gochenour's two-hour lecture, the notes to which can be found at http://www.teddytactical.com/archive/MonthlyStudy/2006/02_StudyDay.htm . You're missing the details, the slides and a lot of other stuff, but the notes are very good and to the point.

I especially commend to you the ADEE model Skip puts forth. The AOJ (ability, opportunity, jeopardy) model is better suited to sworn LEOs who have the duty to confront a threat. As an armed citizen you have no such duty, and your better course of action is ADEE- avoid, de-escalate/disengage, escape and evade if possible.

In another study session, Skip put forward the following line of thinking:

YOU MAY BE WHATEVER YOU RESOLVE TO BE

YOU HAVE RESOLVED TO BE THE ULTIMATE MORAL ARBITER!

YOU HAVE TAKEN IT UPON YOURSELF TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT A SET OF RAPIDLY EVOLVING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND DECIDE THAT THEY MEAN SOMEONE SHOULD HAVE LETHAL FORCE USED ON THEM AND YOU NEED TO DO IT.

As a person who carries weapons about in society you have decided that you are a moral arbiter.

You are obliged to prepare yourself physically, mentally, emotionally and morally for the role as a moral arbiter.
You are obliged to train your body, mind and spirit for your role as moral arbiter.
Failure to accept and exercise these obligations is an exercise in immorality. It is a failure of discipline and self-control. - http://www.teddytactical.com/archive/MonthlyStudy/2007/02_StudyDay.htm

No matter what the legal system ultimately says about your decision to employ deadly force in defense of yourself and others, it is that other word- MORAL- that keeps coming to the fore in my mind. Is that the right thing to do, right there, right then? Are there other options available to you that mean you don't have to shoot at someone right there, right then?

IMHO the important thing is to have all this mental jumble settled enough in your own mind in advance. You need to know what is right for you to do within your own moral code, and you should have a reasonable certainty that your actions are legally necessary under the prevailing circumstances as well. You need to be able to understand as you press the trigger and concentrate on the front sight all the reasons why that was the only option you had right then, right there. And you need to be able to clearly enunciate those reasons ten minutes later when the cops show up, two days later when the DA asks you why, and if necessary two months after that when you are in court.

But the biggest thing is to get all the Problem Two worries taken care of well in advance, so you don't have to dither over them while you are trying to sort out Problem One.

And don't forget to check your six, either...

Stay Safe,

lpl
 
Last edited:
And you need to be able to clearly enunciate those reasons ten minutes later when the cops show up,
Click to expand...

No, you tell the cops nothing except "I feared for my life, I want to cooperate and will when I have my lawyer." PERIOD.
 
Last edited:
Disclaimer:: I am no lawyer and this is not legal advice...

IMO and speaking just for myself. My first impression is that if someone refuses to follow reasonable commands at gunpoint, they must have very bad intentions.
 
You know, I used to think the same way...until I realized that pepper spray is only good at 5-10 feet, and if they are a true threat, that is waaaay too close.
Click to expand...

That's true but I there are at least two things about this particular situation:

1) They did approach within 10 feet. I think the goods brands of pepper spray claim 30 feet or more range. I don't know if that's truth in advertising or not.

2) In the absence of clear aggression and no obvious weapons, simply approaching within feet and yelling nasty things could make a SD shoot a hard sell. I'm not saying it would be wrong but it might be tough to not get charged. Continued warnings while they approach and a blast of pepper spray may make a difference in the "I did all I could to avoid shooting him" argument. Anything to make the case that you tried to do as much as possible to not shoot someone is good.
 
If anyone happened to page down past Lee Lapin's post 22, I strongly recommend reading it carefully. I've bookmarked the link he posted to the teddytactical course.

http://www.teddytactical.com/archive/MonthlyStudy/2006/02_StudyDay.htm

I had not seen that before. I can assure you that I will be stdying it.

Here's another link that I find helpful:

http://www.useofforce.us/

In this one, the author takes the principles of ability, opportunity, and jeopardy and adds preclusion: the principle that the actor may not resort to deadly force unless he has no other option reasonably available.

That's leads directly to Skip Gochenour's ADEE- avoid, de-escalate/disengage, escape and evade if possible. That was taught in my CCW course. As Lee says, unless you are sworn to enforce the law, that's always your better course. And unless your state has a stand-your-ground law or your actions are covered by a castle law, it is your legal obligation to do so (unless there are extenuating circumstances) for a defense of justifiability to have much chance of succeeding.

Here's another good one written for defense attorneys:

http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/01c1e7698280d20385256d0b00789923/f587d7d10c34fff2852572b90069bc3c?OpenDocument&Click=

The author also refers to the concept of preclusion when the actions involve civilians.

I strongly recommend that people bookmark and study these materials.

In Lee's post I've found something I really like: "A superior gunman is best defined as one who uses his superior judgment in order to keep himself out of situations that would require the use of his superior skills."

I always try to avoid refueling in questionable places or when there are few people around.
 
Three bad guys and you caused all of them to realize you were going to be someone they had to EARN their rewards from.

Criminals are by and large lazy assed people.

If they think they will have to work to get your money,they will go elsewhere.

Very glad you did'nt have to shoot them.

As far as pepper spray goes,in this case,that would have likely only caused one of them,if they had it,to draw a handgun on you.

And most pepper sprays only work up to fifteen feet on a windless day.

Add wind and the range can get to where you are spraying you and the bad guy(s).

I'm looking into pepper foam for non lethal defense.

You did exactly right.

One more step from the bad guy and I'm sure you would have put him down.
 
You done good, good SA good reactions, the best thing you did was call the police afterward.----get the correct version on the record. " We just asked this guy for directions and he pulled a gun on us"

+1 on Supergas advice DO NOT TALK TO POLICE AFTER A SHOOTING W/O A LAWYER!!
 
RednockRiot, read this book if you have not already. It is by Dave Workman of D&D Gunleather. Its specifically about WA state gun rights and responsibilities. He goes into a good discussion about use of force, requirements, etc.

Washington State Gun Rights And Responsibilities by Dave Workman


The cost of this book is minimal, and well worth it.
Click to expand...

That's a big +1. This book should be requried reading for anyone with a WA CPL.
 
Basically they were saying that you can't just draw to scare some one off, you only draw when you have to fire. I don't agree.
Click to expand...

In Fl, as I was taught in the class, in order to draw your weapon legally, you must have the same justification as you need to actually shoot them. I interpret this to mean that, while scaring off an aggressor is better than having to shoot them, you can't do so unless your threatened with death/bodily harm, etc.

The OP did just great. By all means scare off an aggressor. Just don't think you can get away with that easier than actually using lethal force. You will be charged if you don't have the same justifications required to shoot.
 
What I want to understand is if you draw on someone for a good reason because you felt the life threat, why would this be an issue....what is the BG going to do, call the cops on you? Highly unlikely..... and go ahead and let him!
 
I think you handle yourself very well!

The ONE thing I would add is to tell the BG/s that you will call 911 (and certainly CALL if you're able).

"Can't help you... stop, I don't know you... I'm going to call 911"

And this can be done while preparing to draw your weapon. I know this is easy to forget in the heat of a moment, but it could really help in showing you've all exhausted your options in the event you face litigation.
 
Thank you all for your great comments and insights, this situation is one I do not wish to physicaly revisit it was very un-nerving and though I feel that my actions were indeed justified I cannot help but second guess those actions especially when the legal consequences are weighed into the equation.

I have since posting signed up for a local use of force class, and have obtained a copy of Dave Workman's book. This is truly good information, and is first rate. The suggestion to speak with a good reccommended criminal defence attorney was a great addition and I will be definately scheduling an appointment. I do still feel that my government needs to clarify the use of force guideline before issuing a CCW it is quite close to en-trapment to issue such a licence without the proper information in its use being stated.
 
RR:

The problem is you have to convince 12 jurors, in one of the safest places in the world, a court room, or deliberation room, that are well fed, warm and cozy, about the situation you found yourself in, and, the threat of those 3 nice men, perfectly shaved, in beautiful suits, that are the defendants, or witnesses...

You have no evidence, other then your word, of what happened. I went through this thread, and, it sounded to me that the Devil was there, and, his friends, drugs and alcohol. I have watched sober people go insane when we had handcuffs on them, but, it's not as common as with the Devils friends present. I suppose the dead body could testify, when they find .29 alcohol, and high as a kite on meth, and, it sounds to me like that's what you were dealing with.

That said, it's hard to get jurors to feel the terror of being surrounded by
large, drunk or high large men, in a comfy courtroom.

Orion has a good point on the pepper spray limit. I know if I'm fueling my car at 2 am, I have pepper spray, but, if I was in a bad area, I might have a can of bear spray as well.

Your thread reminds me of the same problem I was facing in Oakland, going into an area that was semi-rioting, and, what if you get caught in it, as a target? The riot is about a white officer shooting a helpless black man on the ground. Can you imagine the press if you started shooting rioters that are throwing rocks at you and your car?

No easy answers for this one, but, a non-permanent form of protection comes to mind. Taser comes to mind for the simple reason you could hit one guy, pull the gun as well.

If it had been me, I would have dumped the gas, jumped in the truck, and took off, if I could make it, that is...
 
Might not have been a bad idea when the two began advancing across the street toward you to have raised your cellphone to your ear, speed-dialed 911, and said loudly, "STAY BACK, I HAVE CALLED THE POLICE!" and proceeded to give the dispatcher your location and a play-by-play.

And all of this while you kept a hand on your weapon until it became necessary to drop the phone and draw it.

Just a thought.

I deterred a road rager by doing something similar with my phone.
 
You were approached by suspicious people, and more than one of them. They made it obvious that they weren't there to help you, so that only leaves the option that they were up to no good.

There were more than one of them. I've always considered multiple BG's as a threat to my life. One person can be bad enough. Two is double the trouble. They can take you down, disarm you, and defeat any resistance you put up, a lot easier.

You were justified in putting your hand on your weapon. That should have stopped them in their tracks. They didn't so you drew, again justified.

It is my belief that once a deadly weapon has been added to the situation, either by the BG or the Good Guy, any escalation of the situation should be considered lethal force.

If I have my weapon in a visible holster, I make a concealed holster visible, or I draw my weapon to make it even more visible, especially if I take aim at the BG(s), and they keep coming (escalating the situation) I can only assume they mean to do me great bodily harm or worse. The very least they will attempt to do will be to disarm me. Now they have a gun, and lethal force would certainly be justified, except I have to get to my BUG, and that's if I have one.

You gave plenty of verbal warnings. They ignored you, so by now there is no doubt that they are up to no good.

I'm assuming by your post that you never took aim at the BG. Even if you had, IMO, you would have been justified.

If I draw my weapon, take aim, and the BG is still coming, I'll pull the trigger. If he has a weapon I'll probably pull the trigger a little sooner, but I'll still do it. I'd be willing to risk the legal stuff to keep myself alive. I don't want my kids to get to know their father through a plexi-glass window, but I would rather have that then them not have me at all.

All of this is just my opinion, not meant to be any form of legal advise.
 
LawOfficer.com has a lot of very good articles available online. From Understanding the Objectively Reasonable Standard - Self Defense:

Then there is the well-settled issue of self defense . Every person has an absolute right to self-defense. In the case at hand, the two police officers had not surrendered their individual right to self defense as a consequence of their professional occupation. The rules of self defense are clear:

  • One need not be harmed before acting.
  • One need not calculate and prioritize a hierarchy of alternatives.
  • One need not determine the underlying intent, apparent motivation or potential impairment of the attacker.
  • And if you are a law enforcement officer engaged in legitimate police activities, you need not retreat from your duty or endure unreasonable risks to your safety.
Click to expand...
You don't have to be in a "bad neighborhood" to have something happen when it's late. I had an unpleasant experience one night at a well-lit gas station in a "nice" area. It went to firing-grip-on-concealed-gun-in-holster-out-of-bad-guy's-view before he had second thoughts about his choice of a potential victim and left.
 
doc540 said:
Might not have been a bad idea when the two began advancing across the street toward you to have raised your cellphone to your ear, speed-dialed 911, and said loudly, "STAY BACK, I HAVE CALLED THE POLICE!" and proceeded to give the dispatcher your location and a play-by-play.

And all of this while you kept a hand on your weapon until it became necessary to drop the phone and draw it.

Just a thought.

I deterred a road rager by doing something similar with my phone.
Click to expand...

doc540,

I'm sorry, but if a handgun fails to deter these guys, do you really think a cell phone will do anything? What is the best response time in your neighborhood? I live in South Florida and my office is in Coral Gables. That is one of the nicest parts of Miami. Police response time is very fast there and they usually respond in less than 5 minutes (even non-emergencies). I doubt that Redneck_Riot would want to tango with those guys for 5 minutes or even 1 minute. They could have easily beat or killed him and robbed him before the cops ever showed up.

Whe it comes to a potentially life or death situation, you respond with the level of force that is necessary to end the attack and save your life. I'm glad that Redneck_Riot didn't have to shoot anyone that night, but his actions did prevent a crime, and possibly saved his life. Save the cell phone to call 911 afterwards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top