You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Engaging an "unarmed person..."
- Thread starter Tactical Jackalope
- Start date
Tactical Jackalope
New member
No, I chose this one because it actually shows great bodily harm. Zimmerman didn't. He lived and wasn't severely injured. I want people to see what bare hands can do and the severity of it.I thnk the Zimmerman case is a better example of exactly what you were driving at. He was an unwilling participant in a fight, and his unarmed assailant was banging his head on the ground, so he shot, and a jury vindicated his decision.
I think all the above referenced cases/videos show a great reason to carry something besides just a firearm for SD.
Some intermediate level (less lethal) alternative would give most of the non martial artists in the group some other option besides the gun in the case of an unarmed but threatening individual.
By NO MEANS am i saying OC is a replacement for the firearm. If facing deadly force...respond in kind. But id rather OC some barehanded hothead then have to shoot them. Even if i could justify my actions. Having been there and done that, i hope to never have to shoot another person.
If you cant fight off an empty handed attack due to age, physical limitations or just plain lack of skill/training. A small can of OC can be a good option, when appropriate.
Some intermediate level (less lethal) alternative would give most of the non martial artists in the group some other option besides the gun in the case of an unarmed but threatening individual.
By NO MEANS am i saying OC is a replacement for the firearm. If facing deadly force...respond in kind. But id rather OC some barehanded hothead then have to shoot them. Even if i could justify my actions. Having been there and done that, i hope to never have to shoot another person.
If you cant fight off an empty handed attack due to age, physical limitations or just plain lack of skill/training. A small can of OC can be a good option, when appropriate.
Limnophile
New member
Many people do seem to believe that the duty to retreat violates natural law, but when the learned men charged with deciding the question did so long ago, they decided otherwise.
That goes back quite a number of years before Geoffrey Chaucer wrote, in Middle English, a series of poetic tales about a group of people making a pilgrimage from Southwark to the shrine of Saint Thomas Becket at Canterbury Cathedral.
When the thirteen original British colonies won their hard-fought freedom from Great Britain, they all adopted the English Common Law, with which came the duty to retreat. Maine followed suit in 1820. Had the imposition of that duty been considered "tyrannical", it would not have remained in the law.
The English system of law, while we inherited it, was not perfect, nor is the Americanized version two centuries later. It's pretty easy to identify laws on the books that violate the principal system our country is founded on -- natural law. Natural law trumps the Constitution, statutory law, and common law. Ideally, all four are in sync, but we have far too many laws these days for all to be in sync. That said, good luck arguing your case in court that natural law trumps a statute. The judiciary has long been the most corrupt branch of government. Unfortunately, the executive and legislative branches are giving the judiciary a run for its money.
See this for a little background.
Thanks for the link.
Fewer jurisdictions impose a duty to retreat today. That is likely due in part to the fact that people cannot outrun bullets.
The victim in the Kimball case was not using bullets.
I couldn't find much coverage of the Kimball trial. I can see Kimball being viewed as the victim, but as a juror I'd want a lot more info than what I read on the net before making a decision.
It seems certain that the 63-year old bully started the confrontation by physically and verbally assaulting Kimball repeatedly. As far as I know, any duty to retreat is in place only if one can retreat safely. If Kimball is old and crippled, walking backward to his car may not have been feasible, and it may well have been dangerous for him to turn his back to his assailant safely.
I was struck by the conflicting testimony of the orthopedic surgeon who performed a knee replacement on Kimball. At one point a story says the surgeon stated that Kimball was capable of walking away slowly; at another the surgeon states he was capable of walking away briskly. I doubt any 70-year old with a knee replacement does anything briskly.
Limnophile
New member
I should just point out irregardless is not a word.
I find your allegation inflammable.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Hogwash. We discussing how the legal system actually works in the real world. And your notions of "natural law" don't mean anything here in the real world.Limnophile said:...Natural law trumps the Constitution, statutory law, and common law....
Let's stick to reality and avoid excursions into metaphysics.
It seems certain that the 63-year old bully started the confrontation by physically and verbally assaulting Kimball repeatedly. As far as I know, any duty to retreat is in place only if one can retreat safely. If Kimball is old and crippled, walking backward to his car may not have been feasible, and it may well have been dangerous for him to turn his back to his assailant safely.
Actually that is very far from certain. Both Kimball and his victim showed up at what they knew would be a tense situation on property that neither of them owned. But Kimball brought the gun, and he killed a man. Now a man is dead and Kimball will be in jail for the rest of his life. All because of a dispute involving the assets of a honey farm.
I was struck by the conflicting testimony of the orthopedic surgeon who performed a knee replacement on Kimball. At one point a story says the surgeon stated that Kimball was capable of walking away slowly; at another the surgeon states he was capable of walking away briskly. I doubt any 70-year old with a knee replacement does anything briskly.
Yup, and his lawyer also tried to claim that he was running out of room to back up into. Kimball could have simply called the local police and asked them to be there while he conducted his business, he knew that what he was walking into had the potential to get tense. Instead he had a couple of pops and showed up carrying. Now he's in jail for the rest of his life, and he paid a small fortune on a failed defense to get there. And as a local I'm not aware of anyone who isn't related to him who is upset by the results.
The anti-police media use the word 'unarmed' as being the same as 'harmless.'
I believe this is a twisting of language to make the police look bad. I think these twits know the difference between unarmed and harmless, but they deliberately distort the situation.
A comment on buckhorn cortez's encounter. Not to criticize him, but merely to point out that a lot of people have died as a result of falling backward on concrete and injuring their brain. When that happens, the person who propelled the other one to the concrete is usually in big legal trouble. In the heat of battle, one would usually not have time to consider what kind of surface your opponent is on. In my mental preparations for the possibility of hand-to-hand combat, I try to visualize kicks to the groin or punches to the solar plexus. Martial arts training comes in handy in this regard.
My two cents
I believe this is a twisting of language to make the police look bad. I think these twits know the difference between unarmed and harmless, but they deliberately distort the situation.
A comment on buckhorn cortez's encounter. Not to criticize him, but merely to point out that a lot of people have died as a result of falling backward on concrete and injuring their brain. When that happens, the person who propelled the other one to the concrete is usually in big legal trouble. In the heat of battle, one would usually not have time to consider what kind of surface your opponent is on. In my mental preparations for the possibility of hand-to-hand combat, I try to visualize kicks to the groin or punches to the solar plexus. Martial arts training comes in handy in this regard.
My two cents
johnelmore
New member
If someone raises a firearm at you chances are you are doing something hostile. Now if they raised a firearm at you and you continue moving forward well you are violating an old unwritten law. You take a gun to a gunfight not your fists. In any event this is a well argued well debated topic without easy answers in message forums, but I bet you if that 250 lb guy is charging at you with his fists there is no debate.
OldMarksman
Staff
Posted by johnelmore:
Not I.If someone raises a firearm at you chances are you are doing something hostile.
Such as "don't do anything stupid"?Now if they raised a firearm at you and you continue moving forward well you are violating an old unwritten law.
You should not go to gunfights at all.You take a gun to a gunfight not your fists.
The legal answers are well known indeed, but they are entirely dependent upon the circumstances, and the outcome will also hinge on the evidence presented and the way the jurors feel about things.In any event this is a well argued well debated topic without easy answers in message forums,...
The debate could go on for days....but I bet you if that 250 lb guy is charging at you with his fists there is no debate.
That video of the young ladies fighting is a stark reminder of how fragile the human body can be. In this case an argument could be made that the paved road was used as a weapon.
I believe than no one is ever truly "unarmed". If pressed into violence people will find anything they can to cause pain or injury. Keys, heavy purses, leather belts, rocks, sticks, ballpoint pens, tightly rolled magazines... I have treated patients with severe injuries due to these implements being used against them.
I, too, dislike that the term "unarmed" is being used to imply "harmless".
Here is a video of a friendly sparring match between two young men that went horribly wrong. This video is also graphic:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IJUFlse9Hjg
Here GLOVED hands are used. One punch with the right level of force in the right place resulted in brain injury. His mates should also undergo some type of first aid training as their response is totally inappropriate. And, in this case, there was no intent to cause major harm.
Humans, with or without firearms, are dangerous.
I believe than no one is ever truly "unarmed". If pressed into violence people will find anything they can to cause pain or injury. Keys, heavy purses, leather belts, rocks, sticks, ballpoint pens, tightly rolled magazines... I have treated patients with severe injuries due to these implements being used against them.
I, too, dislike that the term "unarmed" is being used to imply "harmless".
Here is a video of a friendly sparring match between two young men that went horribly wrong. This video is also graphic:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IJUFlse9Hjg
Here GLOVED hands are used. One punch with the right level of force in the right place resulted in brain injury. His mates should also undergo some type of first aid training as their response is totally inappropriate. And, in this case, there was no intent to cause major harm.
Humans, with or without firearms, are dangerous.
In any event this is a well argued well debated topic without easy answers in message forums, but I bet you if that 250 lb guy is charging at you with his fists there is no debate.
I've met 150 pound men that scared the hell out of me. Despite the size of the bad guy, isn't the whole point of this forum to debate tactics? Isn't the goal to find out how to avoid situations where you have to shoot anyone, no matter what their size?
Deaf Smith
New member
Pepper spray boys.. Pepper spray.
When packing a deadly weapon, pack such as a Sabre Spitfire pepper spray device.
Use that first if you can.
Deaf
When packing a deadly weapon, pack such as a Sabre Spitfire pepper spray device.
Use that first if you can.
Deaf
kilimanjaro
New member
I have a couple of issues with the use of pepper sprays.
If you carry OC and a pistol, and use your pistol, what legal argument have you opened up against you?
I consider OC the equivalent of a .25 caliber pistol. You may just enrage the attacker even further. Also, you are limited to a 'head shot', specifically, a 'face shot' for it to work.
Lastly, the effective range for these sprays is well within the 21-foot rule. I think within that distance, I don't want to deploy anything less than a firearm.
I don't carry a pistol to deal with a fist fight. I carry it to deal with assault with a deadly weapon, including fists and feet.
If you carry OC and a pistol, and use your pistol, what legal argument have you opened up against you?
I consider OC the equivalent of a .25 caliber pistol. You may just enrage the attacker even further. Also, you are limited to a 'head shot', specifically, a 'face shot' for it to work.
Lastly, the effective range for these sprays is well within the 21-foot rule. I think within that distance, I don't want to deploy anything less than a firearm.
I don't carry a pistol to deal with a fist fight. I carry it to deal with assault with a deadly weapon, including fists and feet.
If you carry OC and a pistol, and use your pistol, what legal argument have you opened up against you?
None. On a use of force scale OC is near the bottom and not an appropriate response to a DEADLY threat.
Most people think of the use of force scale as a ladder you must climb, using every step along the way before using deadly force. This is just not true.
I prefer to teach the use of force scale as an elevator. Go to the appropriate floor for the situation.
As an example...every LEO in the US is equipped with some level of less lethal force (OC, Baton, TASER,etc). They do NOT need to attempt to use these when facing a deadly threat. Those items give them options for dealing with a problem that does not rise to the level of DEADLY
The same holds true for the cilivian defensive encounter. The fact you have OC, does not make it the correct choice against a deadly threat.
I carry a small can of OC with me all the time. Its for occasions where my pistol is NOT the correct tool, but i need something besides my hands.
A good example is an AGGRESSIVE begger, someone who is threatening your safety, but not visibly armed. In a situation where you cant just move away and he is closing the distance (empty handed) after being told to go away (verbal commands are part of that use of force continuum).
Hand on with a "street person" is NASTY. Lots of health reasons to avoid that. If possible. A quick blast of OC into his/her face is likely to make them change their mind about continuing the aggressive behavior. It may not, and you need to be prepared for that as well, but its worth a try.
As an OC Instructor, i feel the need to add, its not 100%...nothing is. It also has some limiting factors that must be included in the deployment thought process. Wind is the biggest. All that said, its an OPTION that allows me greater flexibility in my response to a threat.
Does not mean i MUST use it, but i can if its appropriate.
Edit to add: With ANY cilivian use of force, it needs to have a police response for follow up and reporting. Dont just spray and head for home. Call 911, inform them of the incident and have a report taken. Just CYA
Last edited:
How would everyone manage in a country where firearms are not allowed for self defense, pepper spray tasers, and carrying a knife are illegal. If a 250 lb guy charges you here then you have to deal with it without a weapon.but I bet you if that 250 lb guy is charging at you with his fists there is no debate.
Quote:
but I bet you if that 250 lb guy is charging at you with his fists there is no debate.
How would everyone manage in a country where firearms are not allowed for self defense, pepper spray tasers, and carrying a knife are illegal. If a 250 lb guy charges you here then you have to deal with it without a weapon.
That is one of the great things about living in the USA. Our founding Fathers ensured we would have the right to self defense, both from criminals and our own Government, should that become needed.