Deadly force to retain handgun

4

45_auto

New member
We had poster in another thread state that he was surprised how many people would shoot if someone tried to take away their gun. He believes that a handgun is property and you can't use deadly force to prevent someone from taking it.

I stand by my statement. If someone is trying to take your handgun does not mean that you are automatically authorized to use deadly force. A handgun is property. You cant use deadly force to protect property. It's a very rare situation where you can use deadly force for what someone might do.
Click to expand...

I can't even conceive of a thought like this crossing my mind. If I'm in enough fear of death or serious bodily injury from someone to pull a gun, it's going to get used if they try to take it from me.

Anyone else believe that they can't use deadly force to retain their weapon? Is this actually taught somewhere?
 
I am sort of fond of breathing. If someone tries to wrestle my handgun from me, they just volunteered to be ballistic test media.
 
So this person believes that in order to justify deadly force you have to wait for an attacker to wrestle the gun away from you, then they need to menace you with it? Good Lord.
 
If someone is trying to wrest your gun from you,,,
It has nothing to do with "property".

You are under attack. :rolleyes:

~Sheesh~

It's this kind of false reasoning,,,
That has our legal system so tied up in knots.

Aarond

.
 
Last edited:
A link to the original thread would be nice...

But yah...

A lawful order by a LEO is one thing, but do not attempt to take a gun from me by force, and not expect it to be used against you...
 
If you have pulled your gun, haven't you already been through a mental triage process of preparing to use deadly force as a response to a fear for your (or others) life?

Wouldn't an attacker trying to take your gun be a further exacerbation of that process, and evoke a stronger response to stop the threat?

With the litigegiousness in the US today I can't imagine pulling a gun unless I was prepared to pull the trigger for a very good, and defensible reason. Attempting to take anyone's weapon would clearly be an escalation of the threat in my mind.
 
Someone has tried to take my handgun out of my holster, and it was met with much more force than he expected (but no shots were fired). I was completely ready to shoot the man if need be, because once you go for my gun, it has just become a life and death struggle. My best guess is that after taking my gun, he will kill me with it, and I will shoot to defend myself and keep that from happening. The only "property" that I am protecting is my life.... Anyone who says otherwise is very ignorant.

Sent from my HTC One X
 
Any LEO [or anyone else with common sense] that finds himself in a struggle for possession of his own sidearm is going to shoot the attacker at the first opportunity. The assailant has access to a firearm [the LEO's] and will most likely use it to shoot the officer if he manages to get control of it. It's not about preventing a theft..it's about preventing your own demise at the muzzle of your own weapon. Good grief!
 
If someone tries to forcefully take your gun from you chances are they don't just want to look at it. In my mind it completely justifies use of deadly force and is what I would call a life or death situation. That whole "property" spiel is BS. Someone trying to take your wallet is one thing, but wallets cant kill you if taken from you. Even my friends know never to grab my gun when it's in my holster or there likely to get a whack to the side of the head.
 
Dumb but not as dumb as....

That forum post is a "hall of famer" or maybe a "hall of shame"...

It's about as stupid as the firearms-tactics board member who advised others NOT to reload a sidearm with a fresh magazine or to do a tactical reload in a critical incident because you MAY look like you were tampering with evidence.

Now, I'm all for due process & obeying the law(s) but I also like being 3D and breathing. ;)

CF
ps; "honorable mention" goes to the forum member who's post started with; "I'm not sure if I could use lethal force with my gun."
 
It seems to me that if I had reason to draw my gun on a person in the first place, that I could then easily articulate why said person trying to take my gun away was putting me in fear of death or great bodily harm. It only really gets muddy if a well meaning, but misguided third party is the one trying to grab the gun.
 
I'm only a 2L, but the key to most legal arguments is reasonableness. I think a jury would find it reasonable that a person forcibly attempting to take a deadly weapon from you intends to use it on you. I'd shoot in that situation.
 
For a peace officer, there is no option.. as you never give up your weapon. .
Click to expand...

This was another partial statement made in the other thread which is very true.

Since I value my life as much as any peace officer value's his/her life, in the 'life threatening' situation being discussed, I would feel I wouldn't have any other option ....I would have to do what it took to retain possession of my weapon.

Again, when it comes to protecting ones life, I don't feel a peace officer or any other person has any more privileges then anyone else.
 
Last edited:
The act of wrestling a gun from someone is a dangerous act in its self. If someone is trying to take your gun, I'm not going to chance what they will do with it. I'd rather be judged by 12 then carried by 6.
 
It kind of makes sense to me not to shoot. I mean if he's trying to take it ot of your holster but you get them off and your gun at the ready if thy don't come back to attack you hasn't the threat been eliminated? Especially of they turn to run and you shoot them in the back.

I'm not saying I wouldn't put a bullet in someone mid struggle to try and keep them off but if I got control of the weapon I can't say I'd shoot them for attempting to take it either. Then again I never have been in this predicament nor have I been trained for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top