Defensive Draw vs Brandishing

[spacemanspiff]

Yes, Armed, I do consider myself very fortunate. Things could have gone a lot differently, had the driver not pulled up behind us prematurely.

I'm not sure what to say about your further arguments supporting your theory on this 'burst presentation'. One thing I believe you are overlooking is that the person you feel threatened by, because of aggression and/or larger size, may not make another person who is also of similar smaller stature feel threatened.

If you want to do your burst presentation to defend your safety without having to point your gun at the threat, knock yourself out, good luck. Just don't try and insist that it should be added to the defensive repertoire of everyone else.

Like I said before, disparity of force is subjective. If all they appear to be intent on doing is attacking you without using a weapon, maybe you should be reaching for the pepper spray, or a taser, or even go and get training in hand-to-hand defense. Wouldn't that be better alternatives?

 

[Frank Ettin]

...disparity of force is subjective. If all they appear to be intent on doing is attacking you without using a weapon, maybe you should be reaching for the pepper spray, or a taser, or even go and get training in hand-to-hand defense. Wouldn't that be better alternatives?

This highlights one of the most difficult conundrums in self defense.

Disparity of force is a real issue. An unarmed big/strong/young person can indeed kill someone, especially someone who is infirm/frail/old. The difficulty can come in convincing a prosecutor or, if you're unlucky, a jury that under the circumstances you were at lethal risk from the unarmed assailant.

But if the threat is legitimately a potentially lethal threat, and if the victim is infirm/frail/old, effective unarmed resistance might simply be a bad dream. And things like pepper spray or a taser can fail and, in the face of a truly deadly threat and depending on circumstances, leave one without enough time left to resort to lethal force.

So there can be some merit to a threat of lethal force, when legally justified, which can immediately be backed up with lethal force if necessary. But that of course brings us back to the problem of having to establish that an unarmed assailant really did present a legitimately lethal threat.

All of that serves to illustrate that Avoidance/Evasion/Escape might often be the best choice if possible.

 

[armed]

To All Conceal Carriers,

In relation to my writing it should be understood I’m addressing the working class, and folks that don’t necessarily have the discretionary income to hire a lawyer. What I’m offering is another approach you may want to explore. If you can afford a lawyer then disregard everything I’ve posted, and stop reading this.

This is the Tactics and Training forum:

“When your best defense is a quick, hard offense, the lessons learned here may prove invaluable. This is a "no holds barred" training area.”

You can learn from this thread by recognizing that what you’re witnessing here is no different from the troupe of performers you’ll encounter after a Use of Force event.

The trained animals will arrive. These sheepdogs will be the first ones on scene. Most have instinctive intelligence, these are spectacular sniffers so cleanse yourself of wolf odor. Some only have obedience intelligence, and can be mislead down false trails…witting or unwitting - so always be wary.

For now, you are the cat walking a tightrope, but to the kings, queens, and their royal guests, you are just a jester who is expected to amuse. Though always remember, while you enjoy privileged status, excessive behavior could get you whipped for insulting the court. ENJOY THE CIRCUS.

Lets begin…

My arguments have been called stupid; silly; lousy; terrible; awful; nonsense; and my mock interrogation was hailed a “fantasy”.

This is all in attempt to devalue and diminish your argument. Attorneys and skilled interrogators use this tactic to make you look uneducated. They want you to feel shame and foolishness for trying to match wits with them. Remember, they see you as a jester and view your arguments as buffoonery and “hooey” (#80).

Ignore it and stand tall. If your argument is solid do not bend and be firm in your belief.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________​

I believe in an old saying “rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6”

That's a neat cliche, but don't put too much stock in it.

A cliche promptly dismissed and and now we are to put more stock in the "stupid juror" cliche. Why? Because kings and queens believe we are jesters incapable of deciding their case.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________​

...If there were witnesses, they should be able to state that you gave fair warning to a perceived threat. If there are no witnesses, who says you put your hand on your gun?...

Why? What do you know about eyewitness psychology?

In fact, the unreliability of eye witnesses is well studied and well known. See, for example the article "The Problem with Eyewitness Testimony" as published in the Stanford Journal of Legal Studies. An eyewitness might easily conclude that you were the assailant and that you threatened an innocent man with your gun.

And even if there are no third party witnesses, there will always be a witness besides you -- the guy you threatened with your gun.

Should the defendant choose to take the stand, and I do not see any other way that those "cues" could ever be presented as part of a defense of justification, most defendants would most likely have a terrible time describing the "cues" and why he or she happened to be qualified to interpret them as an indication of criminal intent. There are multiple possible explanations for each of them, and frankly, some people just act that way. I would dread being put in that position.

That's right, we know nothing, we give terrible descriptions, and why should we we even possess the skills and knowledge to give such descriptions? Because it's "fact" that's why.

[I'm getting nauseous - literally]

_______________________________________________________________________________________________​

I have to break for dinner. I will be back shortly and rip to shreds their arguments on substantive law, and the ohhhhh-so-offensive word "kill". I'll even use it in a mock trial, so that you all may weigh in with a verdict on who's keeping things real.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by armed: What I’m offering is another approach you may want to explore.

"Another approach"? Other than what?

And please, one more time, what are you "offering"?

You can learn from this thread by recognizing that what you’re witnessing here is no different from the troupe of performers you’ll encounter after a Use of Force event.

I'm afraid I have no idea what you are trying to say.

The trained animals will arrive. These sheepdogs will be the first ones on scene. Most have instinctive intelligence, these are spectacular sniffers so cleanse yourself of wolf odor. Some have only obedience intelligence and can be mislead down false trails…witting or unwitting - so always be wary.

You have lost me.

For now, you are the cat walking a tightrope, but to the kings, queens, and their royal guests, you are just a jester who is expected to amuse. Though always remember, while you enjoy privileged status, excessive behavior could get you whipped for insulting the court. ENJOY THE CIRCUS.

To whom, and to what, are you referring?

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldMarksman

Why? What do you know about eyewitness psychology?

In fact, the unreliability of eye witnesses is well studied and well known. See, for example the article "The Problem with Eyewitness Testimony" as published in the Stanford Journal of Legal Studies. An eyewitness might easily conclude that you were the assailant and that you threatened an innocent man with your gun.

And even if there are no third party witnesses, there will always be a witness besides you -- the guy you threatened with your gun.

It was not I who said that, but it is really quite incontrovertible.

Should the defendant choose to take the stand, and I do not see any other way that those "cues" could ever be presented as part of a defense of justification, most defendants would most likely have a terrible time describing the "cues" and why he or she happened to be qualified to interpret them as an indication of criminal intent. There are multiple possible explanations for each of them, and frankly, some people just act that way. I would dread being put in that position.
That's right, we know nothing, we give terrible descriptions, and why should we we even possess the skills and knowledge to give such descriptions? Because it's "fact" that's why.

You have missed the point completely.

The point is that the "cues" might prove very valuable indeed in giving one cause to be wary, but a lay defendant's ability to describe them convincingly in a manner that would indicate reason to believe that he or she had had an immediate need to use deadly force would be unlikely to suffice in a defense of justification. I know that I would not want to try it.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I’m addressing the working class, and folks that don’t necessarily have the discretionary income to hire a lawyer. What I’m offering is another approach you may want to explore....

Very bad advice.

If someone has a serious legal problem and his property or freedom is at stake, he needs a qualified lawyer. If he can't afford a lawyer he also can't afford not to have one. I know that a number of my colleagues made a good deal of their money trying to sort out messes for folks who tried to do it themselves -- messes, and legal expenses, that perhaps could have been avoided or minimized with a little care or attention. But at least that lack of care and attention helped enrich my colleagues.

Anyone who thinks good legal representation is too expensive, or they can't afford it, should think about how much more it'll wind up costing them after they tried to do things themselves and made a hash of it.

If you have a serious legal problem, you want a lawyer because (1) dealing with those things is something he's been educated and trained for; and (2) you will be under a lot of stress because you are at risk, while your lawyer is in a better position to think things through clearly and objectively.

Lawyers when dealing with their own legal matters hire lawyers. When a few years ago I had occasion to sue the federal government, I immediately hired a good lawyer.

 

[Art Eatman]

I won't get into the merits of anybody's views, okay? But it looks to me that this thread is an example of the problem of the written word without facial expressions and body language to help provide clarity.

Some could be "dictionary" as to what differences there could be in interpretations of various words. The old "talking past each other" thing.

And what might be legal in one state might well not be legal in another.

Might be best to just let this die. Go away and think about what's been said. Maybe try again--maybe.

And I'll close with another of my "Damfino."