Deadly force to retain handgun

Any attempt to disarm a uniformed police officer carries a very limited set of presumptions, and almost always are in furtherance of escape from custody or resisting arrest.

Glenn, how many cases have you investigated where an assailant tried to disarm a civilian for the sole purpose of just "stealing" the gun? Regardless of whether one is a uniformed officer or not, if someone is trying to take your firearm, the ONLY presumption that you can make is that if they get it, they will use it against you. Any other presumption will more than likely lead to your death, and possibly the deaths of others.

As an example; by your statement, an off-duty officer carrying concealed should not presume that his gun is being wrestled away from him with the final intent being to do him harm... And that just makes no sense.

And I'm still pretty sure that a large percentage of officers who are shot in the line of duty are shot with their own duty weapon... That has not gone away with the more widespread use of better retention holsters.



Sent from my HTC One X
 
You need only to answer a few quick questions ....

Why is it they want my gun ?
What will they do with it if they get it ?
Why are they willing to fight so hard to get it ?

If you believe those will all jeaopardize your staying alive ..... you've answered your own question.
 
Allaround...

In my experience I have seen civillians disarmed, a few times... not many. Usually though the armed person is the agressor. In every instance the unarmed part was a victim in one sense or another, and being unarmed, and in desperation they attack, and attempt to disarm. Now keep in mind that none of these confrontations is either participant a CCW. Usually it's a criminal and a victim, or two criminals.

How many instances of someone wrestling over a gun to just steal it?... never. But most handguns are illegal there, and if and when it did happen it wasnt reported. However I have investigated in one capacity or another over a thousand homicides, and probably upwards of two thousand shootings. While I dont remember the details in most of them I dont recall ever investigating anything where a non criminal victim was shot with their own gun. That would have been unusual.

An off duty police officer in my opinion is not the same as an armed civilian. The reason most cops carry off duty is they have some responsibility to the public , even off duty they are bound by their oath. Also in the course of thei duties they may incur the ire of someone who may well attack them off duty and away from the safety zone of the stationhouse, police car, fellow officers, and police radio. Corrections officers as well should be armed off duty for the same reasons. Again when talking about the police IMO there is a vary narrow set of presumptions.

Eagleks

Why do they want your gun? Maybe to shoot you with. Or maybe they see you as a threat to them... Your the one with a gun and they have none. Just as you dont know their intent. They dont know yours. A person trying to disarm a person threatening them with a gun IMO would be justified, as he's just as, if not more likely to be in fear of his own life.

What will they do when they get it? Maybe shoot you with it. Or maybe hold you for the police. Or maybe run away. Or maybe give it back after better understanding the siuation. The thing is... the CCW may not know.

Why are they willing to fight so hard for it? The same way your willing to fight so hard to keep it. He will probably believe that he's fighting for his life. Keep in mind that it was you who brought a gun to a fist fight. The other guy has no gun... thats why he's taking yours.


This whole conversation started when I recounted a soloution to this delema. That soloution was to make the gun toxic to someone trying to take it from you, because you cant automatically shoot someone for trying to take your gun. I stand by my statement that you cant automatically shoot someone for trying to take your gun.
 
Glenn Dee, you have substantially changed the argument.

In your last "for instance," the CCW has either acted as an aggressor toward an unarmed person, or has engaged in mutual combat, in your words "... it was you who brought a gun to a fist fight."

Sure, given those factors, things change.

But those conditions should be pretty unlikely for the vast majority of us; for that same majority of us, an attempt to grab our gun is likely to meet with deadly force.
 
MLeake

All I ever said was that you couldnt automatically shoot someone trying to take your gun. Any assumptions were made by others arguing against my position. I still say that you cant automatically shoot someone trying to take your gun. Not saying that you cant.... But there's a lot to consider.

I dont think I've changed my argument. Only explained my position.

OK then allow me a few questions... Why would you have your firearm in hand to be wrested from you... or why would an armed person pull on someone who is unarmed. If a person had their own gun justifying a CCW to pull on them... why would they need the CCW's gun?
 
OK then allow me a few questions... Why would you have your firearm in hand to be wrested from you... or why would an armed person pull on someone who is unarmed.

For one, defending myself from someone who is physically attacking me with their hands, or has broken into my house. I do not know if they are armed or not, but am I supposed to wait and see that they are to draw my weapon? Because that seems rather far-fetched.



Glenn, I have had someone try to take my gun from me. I did not even have the gun in my hand at the time. I was carrying openly on my farm and a man that we had just recently bought horses from came up from my side while I was trying to saddle a horse and attempted to pull my gun out of its holster.

What was I supposed to do? Should I have assumed that he had innocent intentions?

Sent from my HTC One X
 
Last edited:
Well, Glenn, seems to me you live in Florida now. You could conceivably draw, legally, on somebody attempting forcible robbery.

If you were female, you could draw on a would-be rapist.

Anybody could draw on somebody forcing entry into their home or occupied vehicle.

If you think the BG has to have a gun, or any weapon, for you to be justified in drawing, then you should really brush up on the laws of your retirement state.
 
45_auto

Deadly force to retain handgun

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.


Glenn Dee

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.

Glenn Dee's opinion focuses solely upon the property aspect of the scenario and ignores the threat to the individual's safety. Further it ignores well accepted jurisprudence that holds when someone acts in close quarters their actions can be interpreted as Assault and Battery even if they do not touch the victim. The was a case where "A" knocked a tray of food to the floor from the hands of "B". "A" did not touch "B"; however the case adjudicated that "A" was guilty of assault and battery upon the person of "B".

Similar analysis would indicate to me that a court would hold that a reasonable person would think that they were experiencing an imminent threat of great bodily harm or death. Therefore, they would be authorized to use deadly force in that situation. Is that automatically authorized to use deadly force?

Automatically is an awkward word in this quoted sentence.
 
Last edited:
Glenn seems to be making the assumption that someone would have drawn and presented a gun without threat to life or great bodily injury. That SHOULD NOT happen with a CCW holder. If you are carrying a gun for defense, it should only be drawn in DEFENSE. Brandishing a weapon with no threat actually transfers the right of self defense to the person you are threatening.

If I were just walking down the street and some guy pulled a gun and pointed it at me for no good reason and I tried to take it away from him. He would not have the right to shoot me because I was trying to take his weapon because he was the aggressor and I would be in fear of my life.

However, if he attacked me first and started punching/wrestling with me, and during the struggle, noticed I had a weapon and began trying to get it away from me, I would make the assumption that he is planning on using it on me and would be in fear of my life.

Glenn Dee is right, in certain circumstances.

However, the circumstances that he is attempting to build his case around, should never happen.
 
Crow

If a person presented deadly force toward a CCW, then the CCW would be IMO totally justified in meeting that deadly force with deadly force of his own. If for what ever reason a CCW presents deadly force, without facing deadly force, there is no justification for using deadly force. To say a CCW would never present deadly force without first facing deadly force is IMO a bit simplistic. There have been threads where posters have recounted drawing, or readying their gun when they percieve a possiboe threat. IMO this is good tactics. It happens... I've done it...and had it done to me... It happens. Keeping in mind that "for no good reason" is your point of view... Not the other guys.

Mello2U

No matter how you shake it out... A handgun is property. If you shoot someone for trying to steal property there is a good chance your going to be enjoying the amenities at the graybar hotel. (Come on guys... Read between the lines here) I'm not ignoring Jurisprudence... and I wouldnt depend on jurisprudence to keep me out of jail. Automatically is the perfect word IMO... Many were posting that if someone attempted to take their gun they would use deadly force to stop them.

MLeake

Yes I do live in Florida now. I could draw on someone commiting a forcible robbery on me or someone else. Robbery is pretty much forcible theft from the person using fear or intimidation. I'd probably shoot a robber as well. And if a robber attempted to disarm me I'd shoot for sure. The robber has already shown his intent, and motive before he tries me. I think someone could shoot in such a situation. I'm not suggesting that a CCW cant shoot a perp trying to take his gun... I'm just saying that it's not automatically justified.

Allroundhunter

Defending yourself in your home is completely different than off your own property. If someone forced his way into your home... Well if someone forced his way into my home... he's leaving feet first. Outside your home, and property if you get into a fist fight... even if your an unwilling participant. You cant bring a gun to a fist fight. Much has been said about disparity of force. So if your a 68 year old man and set upon by a 22yr old MMA wannabe... I could see presenting deadly force because if it went to fists there is a high degree if likelyhood that you would not survive the encounter. Once again it's not automatic. You experienced an attempted gun snatch. Thats crazy, and very frightening. It's happened to me several times, but I was trained, and had proper equipment to resist. Though once I did take a beating in order to protect my firearm. I've mentioned in other threads that firearm retention should be taught in every self defense course. Retention while holding the gun, a well as retention in the holster.
 
Glenn Dee, if somebody is stealing a gun out of your shed (not that I would have a gun in my shed), that is a very different animal than somebody attempting to take a gun off your person.

It is a serious reach to come up with scenarios where use of deadly force would not be justified in such a case. Do they exist? Yes. Are they anything like the norm? No.
 
Why put faith that the person trying to take a gun from your holster wants to take the gun and run? Why would even a criminal entertain that? He could get killed!

Like Mleake said, its not the same as someone running out the back door with a gun that they stole where you would be shooting the person in the back. The personal property argument is over simplifying the situation of someone DISARMING YOU when your gun is loaded. How could a prosecutor get around the simple defense of "When he tried to get the gun from me, I thought he was trying to kill me, so I got the gun and shot him". I have a hard time believing that if those were the facts of the case, or the only story, that there would be enough to prosecute.

One would think there would be some KNOWN case of this that reinforces Glenn D's opinion. A case that he could turn us to...
 
Without reading the first three pages, I'll start this out by saying I would absolutely shoot someone attempting to take my handgun, or any other firearm.

First of all, I was trained that any attempt to gain control of my weapon was to be treated as lethal force. We were trained to muzzle thump the perpetrator first, and if he continued to try and gain control of your weapon, ghost em. This is of course referring to a weapon I have in my immediate control.

Secondly, even if we are talking about weapons not under immediate control, I believe I am authorized in shooting someone. For example, lets say I wake up to the sound of breaking glass outside, and when I look out my bedroom window, some punk is digging around in my truck. I am going to grab my 12 gauge and confront him from the front steps. If he gives me any reason to believe he is in possession of the G19 I keep in my truck, he's going to have just one chance to save his life. If he tries to run, I will shoot him. If he is breaking into my truck and stealing, he obviously isn't a trustable, law-abiding citizen. In possession of a weapon, I have every reason to expect him to use it, if not on me, then someone else, and that is all the reason I need to drop the hammer on someone.

I tend to object to the idea that lethal force isn't morally justified in the first place, though. People say objects are replaceable. Screw that. We aren't exactly running out of scum bags either--they seem capable of reproducing as well, so as far as I am concerned, my PS3 isn't any more replaceable than the dirt bag trying to steal it. Plus, replacing it takes money. Nobody is giving me money for free though. I have to work for it. That requires time, some segment of my life, which is not replaceable. I don't have a whole lot. I work for what I got, and I try to take care of it, and make it last. I share most of my stuff if you just ask and am as generous as I can be. But if you try to steal from me and I catch you, there's a pretty good chance you're going to experience a sucking chest wound for your efforts.
 
There have been threads where posters have recounted drawing, or readying their gun when they percieve a possiboe threat.

Exactly what I said. (Just spelled a little differently:p)

A threat to life and limb is the only time that that a weapon should be drawn by a CCW holder.

If someone has perceived a potential threat and draws their weapon and the threat tries to disarm them, it will be defensible in court.

Under what circumstance would you see where a CCW would be justified in drawing a weapon such that a person attempting to take the weapon could not be perceived as a threat?

The closest thing that I could think of is maybe in a public place a (hero wannabe) moron notices that you have a gun and thinks that you might be up to no good and tries to get it out of your holster rather than just calling the police to impress people. I would think that in that instance, it would be pretty obvious to the you that the guy was just a moron and not actually out to kill or injure you and even cutting him with the front sight on the gun would be considered an assault with a deadly weapon. In that situation, I agree that lethal force would not be warranted and would probably get you in trouble with the law. But not on the basis of it just being your property.

That is one of the reasons CCW holders must be diligent about not "flashing" their guns.
 
MTMilitiaman said:
Without reading the first three pages,...
On the other hand, you really owe the other folks who have contributed to this discussion the courtesy of doing so.

MTMilitiaman said:
...I was trained that any attempt to gain control of my weapon was to be treated as lethal force....
And it very well might be. The point is that you will need to be able to articulate why a reasonable person in like circumstances would have concluded that lethal force was necessary to prevent the otherwise unavoidable, immediate death or grave bodily injury to an innocent.

MTMilitiaman said:
....even if we are talking about weapons not under immediate control, I believe I am authorized in shooting someone. For example, lets say I wake up to the sound of breaking glass outside, and when I look out my bedroom window, some punk is digging around in my truck. I am going to grab my 12 gauge and confront him from the front steps. ...If he tries to run, I will shoot him....
And in most cases that would not be a justified use of lethal force. You could probably plan on going to jail for a good while as well as losing your gun rights for the rest of your life.

MTMilitiaman said:
...If he is breaking into my truck and stealing, he obviously isn't a trustable, law-abiding citizen. In possession of a weapon, I have every reason to expect him to use it, if not on me, then someone else, and that is all the reason I need to drop the hammer on someone.
,...
But legally that does not justify your use of lethal force. You would be committing the crime of aggravated assault or manslaughter, depending on whether he lives or dies.

MTMilitiaman said:
...I tend to object to the idea that lethal force isn't morally justified in the first place, though....
Your objections are meaningless. The use of lethal force is legal justified only under certain narrow circumstances. If you use lethal force otherwise, you are the criminal.
 
Glenn, I am beginning to understand the points that you are making. Perhaps it was when someone else tried to explain your position for you that made it seem different than what you intended. While we might not agree on all points, we do agree more than I initially thought that we did.

When someone attempted to remove my gun from its holster he was met with much more resistance than he expected, as the retention training that I received was more than the horse play that he was planning on. Weapon retention is a very important aspect of carrying a handgun, IMO, and part of that training will help you to understand when using lethal force during a struggle is necessary.

In my case, the man did not know how to operate a retention holster (which I highly recommend for open carry), and as a result the gun did not have to come into play until the struggle was on my terms. I was able to create enough distance between me and the attempted gun snatcher by putting him on the ground that the immediate threat was over; no lethal force needed (thankfully).

Sent from my HTC One X
 
Interesting story and point allaround.

One would think that careful articulation of a controversial statement would be looked at before posting on such a message board. Perhaps someone could put it better than Glenn, but what he said has a meaning when speaking English, and that's how I took it. Whether or not he meant to say what he said is another story. Perhaps you are right. I know at first I was irritated with his post because a lot of people new to guns could read that and then gain a total misunderstanding of CCW and guns in general. I always think about those people.
 
Glenn Dee said:
Eagleks

Why do they want your gun? Maybe to shoot you with. Or maybe they see you as a threat to them... Your the one with a gun and they have none. Just as you dont know their intent. They dont know yours. A person trying to disarm a person threatening them with a gun IMO would be justified, as he's just as, if not more likely to be in fear of his own life.
This is an entirely different set of circumstances than the opening post. Don't change the parameters of the discussion mid-stream. This discussion began over someone trying to steal a firearm, and whether or not in such a situation the firearm must be considered "property," thus preventing the victim (of the attempted theft) from legally using deadly force to protect his property. In that context, the person carrying the gun is NOT an aggressor.

What will they do when they get it? Maybe shoot you with it. Or maybe hold you for the police. Or maybe run away. Or maybe give it back after better understanding the siuation. The thing is... the CCW may not know.
That's true, the CCW may not know. And the law does not require that he know. The law -- in most and probably all states -- is based on the "reasonable belief" of the victim that he is in fear of losing his life or incurring serious bodily injury. In your ORIGINAL scenario, the victim is the CCW, who is just minding his business and someone tries to grab his gun. It may be that the grabber is a die-hard Colt 1911 collector and he just wants to take my pistol home and add it to his collection -- but it's far more likely IMHO, and far more "reasonable," to think that if he gets my gun he's either going to rob me ... or shoot me and then rob my body.

Yes, self-defense is an affirmative defense, and both Frank Ettin and I have covered that. But you can't "prove" an affirmative defense. The law is based on what the person believed, and the law doesn't require proof -- the law requires only that the belief be reasonable, when viewed from the perspective of the person on trial, and knowing only the facts available to him/her at the time of the incident.
 
Last edited:
"A firearm is property... you cant use deadly force to prevent the theft of property. So... If any of you had someone try and take away your gun and shot them... would anyone say... he tried to steal my gun and I shot him?"

VERY VERY VERY POOR analysis.

This isn't a VCR in your living room we're talking about.

If someone attempts to remove your firearm from your possession, they are not stealing your property, they are committing an assault upon your person.

If someone is willing to assault you while attempting to remove a deadly weapon from your possession, it's not a great leap to conclude that they would also be more than willing to use that deadly weapon to continue their assault on you.

Virtually every state that allows the carrying of firearms has some variation of the "I was in fear of great bodily harm/in fear of my life" as an affirmative defense for the use of deadly force.

In some circumstances, that affirmative defense even applies to using deadly force against an unarmed individual.

Just for interest's sake, I called an acquaintance of mine in Pennsylvania who spent over 20 years as the district attorney for a semi-rural, semi-suburban county, and gave him a synopsis of your arguments.

His opinion was clear -- that in the scenario described, use of deadly force is justified. Once an individual assaults you and attempts to take possession of your gun, the legal premise is that the individual will use your weapon against you and the use of deadly force is legally justified and legally defensible.

He said that while a DA could always bring, or attempt to bring, charges in just about any scenario, Pennsylvania law could make winning such a case very difficult.

Applicable Pennsylvania law - Pay special attention to the bolded sections

Pennsylvania Title 18, Chapter 505 - Justification

"§ 503. Justification generally.
(a) General rule.--Conduct which the actor believes to be
necessary to avoid a harm or evil to himself or to another is
justifiable if:

(1) the harm or evil sought to be avoided by such
conduct is greater than that sought to be prevented by the
law defining the offense charged;


(2) neither this title nor other law defining the
offense provides exceptions or defenses dealing with the
specific situation involved; and

(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification
claimed does not otherwise plainly appear.

(b) Choice of evils.--When the actor was reckless or
negligent in bringing about the situation requiring a choice of
harms or evils or in appraising the necessity for his conduct,
the justification afforded by this section is unavailable in a
prosecution for any offense for which recklessness or
negligence, as the case may be, suffices to establish
culpability."

and Chapter 505 - Use of Force in Self-Protection

"505. Use of force in self-protection.
(a) Use of force justifiable for protection of the person.--
The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable
when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary
for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of
unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion.


(b) Limitations on justifying necessity for use of force.--

(1) The use of force is not justifiable under this
section:

(i) to resist an arrest which the actor knows is
being made by a peace officer, although the arrest is
unlawful; or
(ii) to resist force used by the occupier or
possessor of property or by another person on his behalf,
where the actor knows that the person using the force is
doing so under a claim of right to protect the property,
except that this limitation shall not apply if:

(A) the actor is a public officer acting in the
performance of his duties or a person lawfully
assisting him therein or a person making or assisting
in a lawful arrest;
(B) the actor has been unlawfully dispossessed
of the property and is making a reentry or recaption
justified by section 507 of this title (relating to
use of force for the protection of property); or
(C) the actor believes that such force is
necessary to protect himself against death or serious
bodily injury.

(2) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under
this section UNLESS (my emphasis) the actor believes that such force is
necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily
injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force
or threat;
nor is it justifiable if:

(i) the actor, with the intent of causing death or
serious bodily injury, provoked the use of force against
himself in the same encounter; or
(ii) the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity
of using such force with complete safety by retreating or
by surrendering possession of a thing to a person
asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a
demand that he abstain from any action which he has no
duty to take, except that:

(A) the actor is not obliged to retreat from his
dwelling or place of work, unless he was the initial
aggressor or is assailed in his place of work by
another person whose place of work the actor knows it
to be; and
(B) a public officer justified in using force in
the performance of his duties or a person justified
in using force in his assistance or a person
justified in using force in making an arrest or
preventing an escape is not obliged to desist from
efforts to perform such duty, effect such arrest or
prevent such escape because of resistance or
threatened resistance by or on behalf of the person
against whom such action is directed.

(3) Except as required by paragraphs (1) and (2) of this
subsection, a person employing protective force may estimate
the necessity thereof under the circumstances as he believes
them to be when the force is used, without retreating,
surrendering possession, doing any other act which he has no
legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action.
"
 
Last edited:
Interesting Mike. I am wondering why you posted PA law, when I thought Glenn lived in Florida? I hope you didn't think I disagreed with you, because we are on the same page...

Also, I assume these laws are whats current today and are after the passing of the castle doctrine laws?

(3) Except as required by paragraphs (1) and (2) of this
subsection, a person employing protective force may estimate
the necessity thereof under the circumstances as he believes
them to be when the force is used, without retreating,
surrendering possession, doing any other act which he has no
legal duty to do
or abstaining from any lawful action. "
 
Back
Top