Friend pulled gun on two guys.

Ok - so is mugging a robbery or not? Sure sounds like 'forcible stealing' to me. Then deadly physical force IS justified.

In NY:
A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
...

(b) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal sexual act or robbery; or
...
 
By the way these guys sized him up and one started to move out of his field of view it obvious that they were predators and this probably wasn't the first time they had done this. If they were within 20 ft of this guy they were already to close and in my opinion we was certainly justified. Lets look at another aspect of this. Lets say he gives them 10 bucks. Do they say thanks and go buy sundaes? Probably not. More than likely they press for more and/or stomp this guy for kicks, maybe even take his weapon and use it on him. By drawing his weapon however he may have saved not only his life or health but possibly someone elses. They may remember this the next time they try this stunt and say " You know I wonder if this guy has a gun?"
 
Last edited:
:) What we all need to learn are the gun katas from the movie "Equilibrium". Then it won't matter how close to us the bad guys get...we'll all be able to take out whole armies with just our handguns!
 
absolutely justified. If the case EVER went to court, all he has to say is, and repeatedly so, "I was in fear for my life." That's it. He had no clue what these two men were carrying, or what their intentions were. They invaded his space and made him feel threatened.

Turning and running (tactical retreat) may not have been an option, and also, not viable because a) his car is at his present locaton, so is the nearest phone. He could run for ten minutes and end up not being able to go back because of the veiled threat already posed. When he DID get back, his car would most likely be gone, and then he is doubly screwed.
 
I think he did right. Hopefully the BG's will stop and think twice before doing that again, so saving someone else who may not be carrying.
 
Bottom line is--------when your butt is on the line, do any of you think all the legal ramifications are going to start running through your mind ???? All of the what ifs ??? Bovine feces........just do it........Survival first.......and then if necessary hire a lawyer.......Don't be found dead with a pistol in your pocket------unused.........
 
when your butt is on the line, do any of you think all the legal ramifications are going to start running through your mind ???? All of the what ifs ???
Click to expand...
Unfortunately yes. But very quickly.

Maybe that should be a litmus test. If you aren't tjinking about legalities then it really is in the wringer.

When I took the CCW class we watched a video with some kind of legal guru narating.

One thing he said was that if your hands are cold you can probably justify deadly force.
If your ears are hot you can't.

His theory was based on the theory that when you are truly fearful blood leaves your extremities as some kind of natural defense against injury, there fore your hands are cold. (?)

When you are angry your ears get hot for some reason.

Like I said not my theory but still interesting.
 
I thought when your hands were cold, that meant you were already dead. When you're dead then you know you would have been justified in using lethal force when you were still alive.

Seriously though, interesting, but I don't see how that could be useful. I'm not planning on feeling my ears when I should be shooting.


BTF:

The "assailants" had no visible weapons. They could be screaming up and down that they are going to kill the guy as they approach, but as I was taught by the officers teaching my CCL class I am not yet authorized to use deadly force. I could draw the gun so it is prepared, but I cannot yet aim it at them.
Click to expand...

Nope. If a reasonable person would be in fear for his life, it's justified. If a reasonable person would think they intend to carry out their threat, and it looks like they are able to carry out their threat, you are justified.

Take the classic example of the guy with a hand under his coat, telling you he has a gun and will kill you. You don't know whether he does or not, but you'd be well advised to shoot him anyway. Any educated jury would find that reasonable whether it ended up being a gun or a finger.

BTF:

Course, the other problem is, as I recall from the discussion at the course a few months ago, they can have a weapon on or near their person, but i am still not authorized to use deadly force until it is in their hand. I specifically asked about a scenario where a gun is right next to a guy on the table and he is threatening me, but until that gun is in his hand, I am in the wrong.
Click to expand...

Again, nope. I don't care who told you that, or why. If someone has a gun on a table and intends to kill you, you better shoot him first, or beg for your life and hope he mercifully leaves you alone or just beats you.
 
Seriously though, interesting, but I don't see how that could be useful. I'm not planning on feeling my ears when I should be shooting.
Click to expand...
Like I said , not my theory. Just thought it was interesting what they want us to consider before acting.
And also from my description of the theory it is obvious that that was part of the class that I kinda dozed through
 
Just thought it was interesting what they want us to consider before acting.
Click to expand...
Nah........it's just that many people want a definitive indicator of when to draw and shoot. They want a "green light" sort of sign that says "You are now legal to shoot this BG". They want some hot ears that say "don't draw" or cold hands that say "draw." They want to be able to say "Officer, my hands were old and my ears were not hot, so you can't charge me with squat." Such people should reconsider carrying a gun.

As shown in this very thread, the threshold for action is a very gray area, not a sharp line. There are just to many subtlties and variables. At best, it is a spectrum of gray, perhaps with some red joining it from one of the corners. There are infinite possibilities. It is as individual as each person who chooses to pack a gun. A man who carries a gun must accept this, and be willing to live within it. We are all different, with different abilities, but we all have the same basic right of self preservation.

My usual thought is this: when a reasonable man ceases to be concerned about imprisonment and becomes concerned about internment, he then has cause to draw. If his ears are hot, he still has cause to draw. If he waits until those ears cool down, he may become the parent of orphans. I haven't read any law that requires a telephone to be at least 50 feet away, your ears to be cool, or your car functional. Reasonable man, fear of death or serious life altering injury,....hmmmmmm........sound like what the law says. Imagine that! ;)
 
JOAB--------well I guess after all the discussion, I would give them the $10, the keys to the car and help them push it somewhere to get it repaired...oh! And give them the handgun, as it is quite apparent that many posting here might not really have a use for it and should not be carrying. Of course all of this after I checked my ears and found out the they were hot, called the ACLU, the DNC, the Brady's and found and re-read a copy of Coopers rules of engagement....
 
JOAB--------well I guess after all the discussion, I would give them the $10, the keys to the car and help them push it somewhere to get it repaired...oh! And give them the handgun, as it is quite apparent that many posting here might not really have a use for it and should not be carrying. Of course all of this after I checked my ears and found out the they were hot, called the ACLU, the DNC, the Brady's and found and re-read a copy of Coopers rules of engagement....
Click to expand...
psssssssssst! Look at a few of joabs previous responses on this thread. I think he was just adding additional information to an interesting thread with the "cold hands hot ears" thing. You may find that you agree with many of his previous posts.
 
After rethinking the Hot Ear theory I have decided to act preemptively.

I'm buying digital thermometers to clip onto my left ear and right pinky finger.

That way I have proof of rational thought and may even start a fashion trend
 
I think he was just adding additional information to an interesting thread with the "cold hands hot ears" thing.
Click to expand...
What I find most interesting about this thread is that it has lasted this long.

I honestly would have expected about one page of attaboys with a few very minor tactical critiques
 
This is why I think the CCW Laws are a bit ambiguous--Some might say you are not justified in pulling a gun unless there is imminent danger to your person. However, if the imminent danger comes to fruition, it will most likely be to late for the victim to react meaning that one has to draw his/her weapon prior to the actual closing moments of an altercation (to me, a human being even absent a gun or knife is a potential lethal weapon).

For example, a lady is walking to her car at night and a perp is following her looking to obviously assault her. Now, does she wait for the perp to close within a foot of her thereby becoming prey or does she draw down on him when he is within 10ft or so and warn him that she will shoot if he continues to close?

The idea that one has to wait until they are in harms way is ludicrous as far as I am concerned.

-Cheers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top