CCW question
- Thread starter alzika
- Start date
David Armstrong
Moderator
Let's look at what was said: "he tells the guy to stop and the guy continues to slowly walk towards him." Sorry, but you are going to have a hard time explaining what is threatening about somebody walking slowly toward you. So we have a guy that walks slowly toward you, he's dressed sort of shabby, he has every right to be where he is and walk where he is walking, and he isn't impressed when you start trying to scare him by threatening him. I think you'll have a hard time explaining to a group of reasonable people why you needed to draw a gun in the first place, much less threaten him with it.
No, they both have the same rights. He has as much right to be there as you do. He is not a BG, he has done nothing illegal.
Perhaps. Why is he afraid? Is his fear rational? Why should I have to alter my choice of pathway because somebody is leaping to conclusions? Lots of folks (not saying I would) will push situations like that simply because their dignity has been offended, or for other reasons.
Last edited:
BuckHammer
New member
I think that it would be helpful to clarify on some points of the parking lot scenario.
1. What time is it? Possibly very important.
2. Is the parking lot nearly empty, or very crowded?
3. Are you between him and any possible destinations of his?
No matter how these questions are answered, I would say that the subject should try to move out of the approaching individual's way first, then if the individual alters his or her course to correspond with the subject's new position, that's where it starts getting dicey. In the case that that happens:
1. Can you arrive at your vehicle before him?
2. Can you get into some kind of public establishment before him?
3. Are there bystanders nearby who may assist in some way?
Honestly, no matter how these questions are answered, I can only imagine a narrow scope of possibilities in which the subject should draw, at least if it were me. I am operating under the assumption that the person is reasonable and the assumption that a reasonable person has "not shooting another individual" high on his or her priority list.
Basically, there is not enough information for anyone to give a straightforward answer to the question of "Should I draw and/or shoot in this situation."
Also, I agree that if you are going to draw a handgun, you better be prepared to use it, although that doesn't mean that you will use it. Isn't it true that most Defensive Gun Use occurrences did not involve the discharge of a firearm? That is not a rhetorical question, I cannot remember if that is true or not
. I seem to remember some people on this forum posting that... Oh well, please give more information on the hypothetical if you want more straightforward answers.
1. What time is it? Possibly very important.
2. Is the parking lot nearly empty, or very crowded?
3. Are you between him and any possible destinations of his?
No matter how these questions are answered, I would say that the subject should try to move out of the approaching individual's way first, then if the individual alters his or her course to correspond with the subject's new position, that's where it starts getting dicey. In the case that that happens:
1. Can you arrive at your vehicle before him?
2. Can you get into some kind of public establishment before him?
3. Are there bystanders nearby who may assist in some way?
Honestly, no matter how these questions are answered, I can only imagine a narrow scope of possibilities in which the subject should draw, at least if it were me. I am operating under the assumption that the person is reasonable and the assumption that a reasonable person has "not shooting another individual" high on his or her priority list.
Basically, there is not enough information for anyone to give a straightforward answer to the question of "Should I draw and/or shoot in this situation."
Also, I agree that if you are going to draw a handgun, you better be prepared to use it, although that doesn't mean that you will use it. Isn't it true that most Defensive Gun Use occurrences did not involve the discharge of a firearm? That is not a rhetorical question, I cannot remember if that is true or not
. I seem to remember some people on this forum posting that... Oh well, please give more information on the hypothetical if you want more straightforward answers.yes it is true
The statistics of how much a handgun has deterred crime is not something you can easily trace as it goes from a preventative rather than a statistical number.
Let's say a robbery has happened 5 times in the last week. 2 times a gun was used, 2 times a knife and 1 unknown. How can you track how many times a crime was prevented? You can't trace that.
NRA has some numbers but I believe most all are in agreement that there is vastly large number of crimes that have been prevented in some degree by citizens (some are armed).
Just by some good citizen stepping in and saying that they're calling the cops.
------------
Sorry went off a tangent there.
So back to the parking lot scenario. All those factors comes into play. I mean if it's crowded than one simply would have to yell out for help, right? Attracts attention and deters BG's from doing bad things. On the other hand. Let's say your closing the store and it's midnight. No one is out there except you two. It's dark.
Your in the country, isolated on some farm.... Just kidding on the last one.
Situational awareness comes back.
Your car is down the block and he's catching up to you. I mean we can get really silly here with all the scenarios.
Have you ever read a transcript from a court case? It's very dry. It just a print out what people said. Nothing else. Now have you ever heard of (listened to) a court case - very different. The nuances of what people say and what they say are waaaaay different.
I bring this up because reading David's assessment kinda reminds me of a lawyer - a defense lawyer. Oh, this robber has every right to be there tooo. Oh, the robber was just minding his own bussiness when this man "attacked him" Come on. We're talking about a parking lot in the dark, alone. Not at the mall in Nordstroms in the shoe section.
We're the good guys here right?
The statistics of how much a handgun has deterred crime is not something you can easily trace as it goes from a preventative rather than a statistical number.
Let's say a robbery has happened 5 times in the last week. 2 times a gun was used, 2 times a knife and 1 unknown. How can you track how many times a crime was prevented? You can't trace that.
NRA has some numbers but I believe most all are in agreement that there is vastly large number of crimes that have been prevented in some degree by citizens (some are armed).
Just by some good citizen stepping in and saying that they're calling the cops.
------------
Sorry went off a tangent there.
So back to the parking lot scenario. All those factors comes into play. I mean if it's crowded than one simply would have to yell out for help, right? Attracts attention and deters BG's from doing bad things. On the other hand. Let's say your closing the store and it's midnight. No one is out there except you two. It's dark.
Your in the country, isolated on some farm.... Just kidding on the last one.
Situational awareness comes back.
Your car is down the block and he's catching up to you. I mean we can get really silly here with all the scenarios.
Have you ever read a transcript from a court case? It's very dry. It just a print out what people said. Nothing else. Now have you ever heard of (listened to) a court case - very different. The nuances of what people say and what they say are waaaaay different.
I bring this up because reading David's assessment kinda reminds me of a lawyer - a defense lawyer. Oh, this robber has every right to be there tooo. Oh, the robber was just minding his own bussiness when this man "attacked him" Come on. We're talking about a parking lot in the dark, alone. Not at the mall in Nordstroms in the shoe section.
We're the good guys here right?
David Armstrong
Moderator
I fail to see either of those qualfiers in the scenario as first posted.
Perhaps. The other guy could be just as much a good guy as you, me, or others. When you start pulling out gins and threatening others who are not doing anything wrong, your good guy status becomes suspect in my book. And i'm not a lawyer, I am an expert witness on tactics, training, etc. I have worked for defense lawyers and I've worked for prosecuting attorneys.
Yes, let's "come on." You've now added elements of darkness, walking alone, threatening behavior, and robbery to the first presentation in an attempt to make your positon better. If the position is good you shouldn't need to add all these things to try and justify an action, IMO.
BuckHammer
New member
I fail to see where it says those qualifiers aren't the case. The scenario as presented is far to vague to say one way or the other the proper course of action. You can't say "He's minding his own business" because the context of the event is not included.David Armstrong said:
Let's say, for example (this could be the scenario, since it doesn't say that it isn't) that it's 1 AM, in the middle of a large, empty parking lot. You are near one corner, with no possible destination behind you, when the guy starts walking toward you. After being warned, and as he continues to proceed, I don't see him as "minding his own business", because at that point, he is not respecting your decent, understandable request. Even at that point, however, you can't say one way or the other if it would be alright to draw or not. I would suggest at least some measure of avoidance first.
Let's say separately, for example, that it's noon at a mall parking lot. You've got the mall behind you when a guy is coming toward you. You yell a warning, but it's awful noisy, and he might not be able to hear you. There are lots of bystanders who don't seem concerned. The parking lot is very crowded. My take on this is that the guy seems like he's minding his own business.
My point is, these are two very different events, but both fit the description given by alzika equally. Therefore, it's very difficult to come to conclusions about the event at all, until at least a few more details are included. I stand by my previous post.
David Armstrong
Moderator
But thta is not how things work. You base responses on the information given, not on what might be the case. The information given is quite simple. I agree that it would be nice to have lots more info, but the scenarion as offered gives no indication of many of the things some are using to justify a very questionable response, IMO.
And I agree with your previous post. My point of contention is with those who keep having to add qualifiers to defend their position, as it indicates their position is questionable given the information that is available. Here is the scenario again:
"a guy is walking through parking lot and notices someone shady walking towards him. he tells the guy to stop and the guy continues to slowly walk towards him. at this point, the weapon is drawn."
Given that information and no other, I would suggest the drawing is not only unneccesary, but quite possibly illegal.
BuckHammer
New member
This part of my previous post is part of a much larger post. If one reads the whole thing, they will find that it is not on either side and was made solely to point out the fact that you can't say whether it was alright to draw or not! By saying that they guy was "minding his own business", you are adding the qualifier that he was minding his own business! It is impossible to tell! That conclusion can only be made based on the context. You can say that he "may be minding his own business", but that doesn't tell you anything.BuckHammer said:
EDIT: I'm not specifically saying that you said "minding his own business" and by using "you" I didn't mean to refer directly to David Armstrong. I was more just speaking in my own style. Please keep this edit in mind before quoting specific parts of my post. "You" was meant to refer to people in general, and "minding his own business" was meant to refer to saying that kind of thing.
Last edited:
OldMarksman
Staff
From wildturkey in Texas:
As David Armstrong has pointed out, there is no reason to characterize him as a "bad guy," and if you have drawn, you may be adjudged to be the bad guy.
Your authority for giving another citizen such a command would be... ?
How would you successfully articulate, and convince others, that you had reason to believe that your use of deadly force was immediately necessary to protect yourself against the other person's unlawful use of deadly force or to prevent his imminent commission of acts involving the felonious use of force or threats of force against you? Here's the relevant part of the Texas Penal Code:
Here are some things worth printing and studying carefully, too lengthy to paste text here but very worthwhile. A person not aware of the laws may have a lot of time to study these when it is too late:
http://www.useofforce.us/
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive/MonthlyStudy/2006/02_StudyDay.htm
http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/01c1e7698280d20385256d0b00789923/f587d7d10c34fff2852572b90069bc3c?OpenDocument&Click=
Some thoughts from a lay person: In Texas you have no legal responsibility to retreat. However, the other person has every right to walk right by you. If he gets very close and does then attack, you may find yourself in a very dangerous situation.
Wouldn't it be a whole lot wiser to create the distance yourself?
As David Armstrong has pointed out, there is no reason to characterize him as a "bad guy," and if you have drawn, you may be adjudged to be the bad guy.
Your authority for giving another citizen such a command would be... ?
How would you successfully articulate, and convince others, that you had reason to believe that your use of deadly force was immediately necessary to protect yourself against the other person's unlawful use of deadly force or to prevent his imminent commission of acts involving the felonious use of force or threats of force against you? Here's the relevant part of the Texas Penal Code:
Here are some things worth printing and studying carefully, too lengthy to paste text here but very worthwhile. A person not aware of the laws may have a lot of time to study these when it is too late:
http://www.useofforce.us/
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive/MonthlyStudy/2006/02_StudyDay.htm
http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/01c1e7698280d20385256d0b00789923/f587d7d10c34fff2852572b90069bc3c?OpenDocument&Click=
Some thoughts from a lay person: In Texas you have no legal responsibility to retreat. However, the other person has every right to walk right by you. If he gets very close and does then attack, you may find yourself in a very dangerous situation.
Wouldn't it be a whole lot wiser to create the distance yourself?
David Armstrong
Moderator
Sure you can. You (generic, not specific) take the information that is available and base your decision on that information. If there is nothing there to indicate that one could draw, then one cannot draw. That is a basis for all reasoned discussion and certainly is the basis for a reasonable response. You must have a reasonable fear, etc. Absent that, you cannot legally act. You deal with the information provided. Then if more information becomes available one can modify their position to meet the new information.
Maybe I missed it, but where did anyone other than you say that?
When one quotes a person directly I think it normal to assume that the person quoted is the "you" being mentioned. So if you are not specifically saying "you" as a direct reference to me, why do you keep quoting me to talk about "you"? I'm getting lost here<G>!
Last edited:
BuckHammer
New member
To explain how I used the word "you":
Take "By committing a crime, you become a criminal" (note that the sentence is used for grammar, not an essential part of the debate). I'm not saying that any specific person became a criminal or committed a crime. I'm referring to any person. It would probably be better to phrase it this way:
"By committing a crime, one becomes a criminal"
I hope that helps.
EDIT: I did some thinking and realized that most of the post was an overreaction. I apologize to anyone who read it. In place of all that junk, I will only say to go back and read what I have already posted.
Take "By committing a crime, you become a criminal" (note that the sentence is used for grammar, not an essential part of the debate). I'm not saying that any specific person became a criminal or committed a crime. I'm referring to any person. It would probably be better to phrase it this way:
"By committing a crime, one becomes a criminal"
I hope that helps.
EDIT: I did some thinking and realized that most of the post was an overreaction. I apologize to anyone who read it. In place of all that junk, I will only say to go back and read what I have already posted.
Last edited:
I agree.
Ayoob once pointed out, on a tape I have, that if you were holding someone at gunpoint and they reached for their own gun or a gun sitting on, say, a table--- deadly force would be lawful.
He felt that that one could assume that if a criminal advanced toward you when you had him a gunpoint, you'd be just as justified in using deadly force, since his actions would be consistent with arming himself with your gun.
I agree. I'd be afraid of being disarmed.
Ayoob didn't say that every prosecutor would necessarily see it that way---but what else is new?
David Armstrong
Moderator
I understood, and that is why I put the little <G> and the smiley. I do it myself a lot. No harm no foul, let's all sing Kumbya and such.
David Armstrong
Moderator
I agree with Mas on that, but that is based on the idea that you have already found a person involved in a crime and have elected to try to stop the commission of the crime. Very different, IMO, than someone walking in a public place who has not committed any crime yet.
This is a good question.
You have your gun drawn on an unarmed person and they continue to approach you in an aggressive manner.
Nevermind the reasoning of why you drew your gun, lets focus on what you should do if your gun is drawn and the person keeps approaching you.
What is the right thing to do? Fire on the person? Try to fend them off hand to hand? Do nothing?
This is a good question for the officers in this forum as they have their guns drawn at times on people who are not armed.
The only people that will determine if your actions are justified are a judge or a jury I might add...
You have your gun drawn on an unarmed person and they continue to approach you in an aggressive manner.
Nevermind the reasoning of why you drew your gun, lets focus on what you should do if your gun is drawn and the person keeps approaching you.
What is the right thing to do? Fire on the person? Try to fend them off hand to hand? Do nothing?
This is a good question for the officers in this forum as they have their guns drawn at times on people who are not armed.
The only people that will determine if your actions are justified are a judge or a jury I might add...
Only S&W and Me
New member
Great question....I would like know this myself. Someone here posted that this happened to them and the guy fired a warning shot over the approaching person's head and they stopped. Not recommended, but what else can you do? You either aim for COM or fire the warning shot. I would be as aggressive as hell verbally before the gun is fired. You certainly don't want the BG to come at you and wrestle for your gun!
David Armstrong
Moderator
LOL! Never underestimate my poor typing ability! however, if a nice gin would solve the problem, I'd go for it<G>!
ezenbrowntown
New member
Welcome to TFL.......
Glad to have you amongst us..........
You've already learned a valuable lesson, take everything with a grain of salt!
There is a lot of information to be had on here. Some will be easy to find, some will have to be sifted through. You sure to find people who think like you do, some that seem a little extreme/timid as the case may be.
Concealed carry, IMO, is much more than just basic firearms knowledge. I've been taught firearms safety since I was little, been around guns my whole life, I understand safely handling a firearm, etc. However, CCW is a whole other animal. There is much more liability involved than just simple plinking on a range. I've personally been steadily researching it for the last year, and I plan on actually taking the class this next month.
Some take the approach of "you must carry now, before it is too late". To each their own, but someone not ready (physically, emotionally and/or spiritually) or prepared can be a serious liability to his/her self or family in my opinion.
Carrying a handgun is similar to having a fire extinguisher. You get it with the hopes that you'll never have to use it.
Glad to have you amongst us..........
You've already learned a valuable lesson, take everything with a grain of salt!
There is a lot of information to be had on here. Some will be easy to find, some will have to be sifted through. You sure to find people who think like you do, some that seem a little extreme/timid as the case may be. Concealed carry, IMO, is much more than just basic firearms knowledge. I've been taught firearms safety since I was little, been around guns my whole life, I understand safely handling a firearm, etc. However, CCW is a whole other animal. There is much more liability involved than just simple plinking on a range. I've personally been steadily researching it for the last year, and I plan on actually taking the class this next month.
Some take the approach of "you must carry now, before it is too late". To each their own, but someone not ready (physically, emotionally and/or spiritually) or prepared can be a serious liability to his/her self or family in my opinion.
Carrying a handgun is similar to having a fire extinguisher. You get it with the hopes that you'll never have to use it.