Deadly force or no?

Heroin addict threatens you with a AIDs needle

  • Deadly force is justified....engage BG

    Votes: 65 95.6%

  • Give up car, clothes, money.....

    Votes: 3 4.4%
  • Total voters
    68
Lets put this in perspective the guy says his needle is infected but it isn't. Same badguy says his 1911 45 is loaded but it isn't. There is no difference. Both wielded a potentially deadly weapon that could turn out to be an ordinary needle or a hunk of steel (unloaded gun). I can't risk them being right in either scenario.
 
3-gun, I think one scenerio is much more saleable to a jury than the other.

The average juror would still want you to shoot the handgun or syringe out of their hand, at least in California.
 
Correct me if I am wrong but itsn't it that I have to feel there is the possibility of deadly harm to me? (or something with that meaning) It doesn't have to actually exist.

So if this guy had a non-functional replica gun that looked real and I could not tell then I could use deadly force ot protect myself right?

Well, I believe a reasonable man (the reasonable man theory) would believe that an HIV infected needle is deadly force and I would be able to "put him out of my misery"!

I live in Cal. and I have never heard of the "shoot it out of their hand theory" - thats BS - all you need to do is get one LEO on the stand and ask is there any such training? No way.
 
Part of my CCW mentality stems from the fact that I am a senior citizen with a bum knee, . . . a questionable ticker at times, . . . and some assorted other liabilities that preclude my going one on one with some one who intends to do me bodily harm.

I would assess the situation, . . . looking desparately for a running option, . . . but if I'm in the corner and he's the only door, . . . then he is in trouble. The .45 ACP makes a decidedly bigger hole than your typical syringe.

May God bless,
Dwight
 
When in Rome........

Hypes that desperate are most likely pretty fouled up physically. You do what anybody else that lives in that environment would do. You monkey stomp the cra^ outa him, take any valuables along with his shoes and the syringe. Dump the body in the nearest dumpster and head for the Rescue Mission. You can usually trade the shoes and syringe for methadone and be on your way. The cops will figure it's just another doper-homeless deal and they’ll be on there way too.
If you don't like this solution, stay out of Hypetown..

Semi-seriously, I've been thinking about this for several hours so if it's that tough a question I can only imagine how difficult it would be to articulate the amount of fear of great bodily harm or death I had after I shot him. And if you shoot him, you better have it.
Plan A is starting to sound better all the time.
 
" #7
enikkor
Senior Member


Just pull a gun, you don't have to shoot, and he will prob. run. "

May not be popular with my first post, but if you draw your weapon at a on coming threat you FIRE the weapon and that is what I would do. Pulling out your gun is a last resort in a public place and needs to a final means to a end. saying that I would first yell very loudly for them to back the F off while no one is hurt. more than likely they will run leave rather than wait for people to come to the noise. If not 2 to the body, then one to the head if needed.
 
First off if you are going to draw on the man you better be willing to shoot, there is no shooting to wound. Once you pull that trigger your intention should be to eliminate the threat. Second what is all this talk about .3 % chance of becoming infected. If the man claims the needle is infected with HIV you have to presume that he is telling the truth. And I don't care if there was only a .0000001 % chance of getting infected that is not a chance I am willing to take. Personally I would rather the man stab me to death or shoot me than give me HIV and ruin my life and my family's life. Ss yes if he threatened me I would draw. If he ran then fine, but if after I told him to back off and he advances after he threatened me I would pull the trigger without hesitation.
 
Pull out my knife and cut his hand off :eek::D

Or just, despite my advancing years, give him a beating. 6 year old schoolgirls are tougher than most strung out junkies.

WildheyheresmywalletpowrightintheshcnozAlaska
 
The average juror would still want you to shoot the handgun or syringe out of their hand, at least in California.
Click to expand...

Most people miss the body much less a hand.....get serious.

Hypes that desperate are most likely pretty fouled up physically. You do what anybody else that lives in that environment would do. You monkey stomp the cra^ outa him, take any valuables along with his shoes and the syringe. Dump the body in the nearest dumpster and head for the Rescue Mission. You can usually trade the shoes and syringe for methadone and be on your way. The cops will figure it's just another doper-homeless deal and they’ll be on there way too.
If you don't like this solution, stay out of Hypetown..
Click to expand...

You will probably "monkey stomp" this guy real good. He will probably stick you with that syringe. When you are shriveling up riddled with aids and your family and friends are scared to be around you (even thought not at risk) you will then realize the error in your thinking.

Look guys using your logic of percentages most handgun hits are non life ending. So just because the infected needle has only a 3 percent chance of killing is irrelevant as it can kill. Just as the handgun round likely won't but can kill.

Draw, hope for immediate compliance ,then fire until threat is over. All other options are illogical.
 
Maybe you could BOTH do the monkey stomp... Put out a hat, and hope folks throw a few coins in. Then you could afford to take him to lunch and discuss the whole needle-threat thing. If he's still being a threat, at least you shoot him on a full stomach. You KNOW how long the wait can be in the ER... wouldn't want his stomach growling while he's waiting to get the all the bullet holes plugged.

Speaking of lunch, doesn't California law mandate that you take a mugger/rapist/murderer out to lunch and try to "talk it out" before actually shooting them? I know Bloomberg and Clinton are pushing for that law in NY. :rolleyes:
 
Why should I give him money and let him go on his merry way?
Click to expand...
Because that offers the greatest chance for a favorable outcome. As others have already pointed out, if he is that close to you the chance of you being able to draw, engage, and stop him are fairly low. Similarly, H2H poses a substantial risk of getting stuck. Giving him what he wants will probably get him to move on, anything else actually increases the chance of danger to you. Plus, assuming everything works out well, would you rather give up the small amount of stuff on you, or give up $20,000 in legal fees? Besides, if he doesn't go on his way, none of the other dynamics have changed. You can still try any of the other oprions you might want.
 
To spring board off of David's comments, your defense in court is also much better since you truly tried non-lethal ways to resolve the case.
 
First, my actions in this scenario. On the assumption of intimate range, which I would've never allowed in the first place, I would engage immediately (though it would probably be with an edged weapon as it's quicker to employ than to try to draw and shoot). Even at distances that I would allow, if he continued to press the issue or advanced, I'd engage with a firearm. A threat of serious bodily harm with what is now a bioweapon has been made. A 0.3% infection rate may or may not be acceptable in a clinical situation, but out on the streets you have no venue for immediate action to prevent or hinder infection like a healthcare professional possesses in the clinic/hospital. What the person has done is threaten to murder me (though it's a slow way to go, I prefer not to go before my time). That constitutes lethal force, regardless of his threat turns out to be true (needle is HIV infected) or not (just some leftover smack in it).

First law of combat/war/anything, DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE YOUR OPPONENT. Feeling that junkies are easily overpowered is fine for hypotheticals, it doesn't always work in the real world. In the scenario, the person is assumed to be a heroine junky, that may or may not be the truth. Either way, under the influence of controlled substances, pain is felt differently and that person may be more difficult to subdue as originally thought. If that person happens to be a haggard looking PCP junky, you'll have a much larger battle on your hands than you thought and anything short of mortally wounding them will more than likely not stop them.

Next, what's to say that giving up your items will have the expected outcome. Obviously if the guy has a threat that works on you for a few items, why not press for more. If he is willing to make such a threat on your person, what is to say that he is telling the truth that he will leave when he gets what he originally demanded?

I don't carry a taser, so my only options are hand to hand (not willing to engage due to various reasons, but most of all due to the assailant being armed with a potentially deadly weapon and I'm not into suicide at this time) and escalation to lethal force (edged weapon--not happening as I wouldn't allow him into my comfort zone-- or firearm). He's getting shot.
 
Thanks for the insight guys.

I also agree with a 0.03% chance is not acceptable to me. There is no way I would take a chance to being infected by some druggie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top