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.
is it unlawful?
- Thread starter TRiCoN45
- Start date
Wildalaska
Moderator
If he is still approaching aggressively with unclear motives, I would back and draw, again saying, "Stop there." If he came inside my comfort zone I would shoot to kill.
Congrats you just committed manslaughter.
WildnoquestionAlaska ™
spacemanspiff
New member
Ive experienced this situation, I am sure it is still searchable on this forum or THR.
Faced down someone who (in my humble opinion) was attempting to set me up for a mugging, displayed no weapons, but approached far too close for comfort. My hand was on my gun but it was still holstered. I couldnt see the guys hands, but I also couldnt see anything that would warrant the use of deadly force.
That is the heart of the issue. I can't just say "he looked mean! and he yelled at me! thats why i shot till slide lock!"
edit - btw, when I got home, I called my good buddy, and he advised I call the cops to alert them, the officer who took the report agreed that the encounter I described was more than suspicious and that I narrowly escaped something bad.
Faced down someone who (in my humble opinion) was attempting to set me up for a mugging, displayed no weapons, but approached far too close for comfort. My hand was on my gun but it was still holstered. I couldnt see the guys hands, but I also couldnt see anything that would warrant the use of deadly force.
That is the heart of the issue. I can't just say "he looked mean! and he yelled at me! thats why i shot till slide lock!"
edit - btw, when I got home, I called my good buddy, and he advised I call the cops to alert them, the officer who took the report agreed that the encounter I described was more than suspicious and that I narrowly escaped something bad.
Deaf Smith
New member
Tri,
Disparancy of force. If the attacker is lots stronger than you, AND you cannot safely retreat, then you can treat the attack as a deadly one.
But you will have to articulate to the cops just what the situation is (if they come.)
And yes, that is why such as pepper spray or being good with ones hands-n-feet are good things to know.
A 77 year old lady, if threatend in that way by a tall young thug would have different options than if a 20 year old 6 ft man was accosted by a 15 year old runt!
Disparancy of force, read what Ayoob writes on the subject.
Disparancy of force. If the attacker is lots stronger than you, AND you cannot safely retreat, then you can treat the attack as a deadly one.
But you will have to articulate to the cops just what the situation is (if they come.)
And yes, that is why such as pepper spray or being good with ones hands-n-feet are good things to know.
A 77 year old lady, if threatend in that way by a tall young thug would have different options than if a 20 year old 6 ft man was accosted by a 15 year old runt!
Disparancy of force, read what Ayoob writes on the subject.
Wildalaska
Moderator
Ive experienced this situation
So have I and I have drawn down.
WildbutidontthinkiwouldhaveshotwithoutmoreAlaska ™
If he is still approaching aggressively with unclear motives, I would back and draw, again saying, "Stop there." If he came inside my comfort zone I would shoot to kill. Once he has his hands around my throat it's too late to draw.
thats a bit much I feel. Like my situation, I didn't draw my gun until she was at the edge of my comfort zone, whcih was about 6 feet, but evne then I wouldn't shoot her (clearly cause I didnt), she'd have to pull something out her pocket or lunge at me..then depending on it all, let dog take her out, or my gun. End of story, don't shoot until you HAVE TO. you can draw. I'm a firm believer on it. I dont draw just to prove a point, I only had to draw once in my lifetime, and its a good threating device to show you have no problem protecting yourself, plus you're ready in a split second.
xsquidgator
New member
XD40,
What you did doesn't sound too unreasonable to me. Could argue in the safety of my locked house far away from the situation that you could've should've not drawn, maybe maybe not. Did you call the police after? If not, that'd be the only criticism I'd level. If the gun comes out, or if I think something's going on where I might have to bring it out, I think getting on record with 911 first is very important. In your case, if you don't call the police, you're potentially open to her calling them and claiming you tried to rape/rob/kill her with your gun, and when they come screeching up there you are, a gunman fitting the description. Bad scene which has happened to some people who may have pulled a weapon with some or even total justification, but they got hosed nonetheless.
I worry most about this type of situation in your case, where you're maybe being set up but the bad guys haven't shown enough of his/their cards to necessarily justify drawing and perhaps using deadly force. Maybe it's just someone on drugs, maybe it's harmless, but what if you're about to be violently attacked? As civilians, and in my case without much in the way of hand to hand skills, I'm most vulnerable there in that gray area. I've thought about it, read my state law and a lawyer's advice, and still don't have great answers.
I try to rely on being aware of what's around me, and avoiding possible situations when armed. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to be able to CCW, but I pay a lot of credence to the people who stress how much a CCWer should always de-escalate, swallow pride, walk away.
I get some wiggle room myself out of how I carry (usually pocket holster with a 357 snubbie or a small 9mm). For instance, once my car broke down at the edge of a not so great neighborhood. Waiting for the tow truck, suddenly in a flash a "rice burner" screeches up behind me where I'm pulled up and a young "ethnic" guy jumps out and starts towards me. I wasn't freaked but I was concerned, and as I'd mentally rehearsed, I backed away from him while facing him, keeping my car between him and me, and put my hand on the pistol grip in my pocket holster. I think he was there to help, but if he'd intended harm, I would've had maybe another second and a half before he'd have been on me. My mode of carry allowed me to be ready to draw quickly, and backpedaling bought me another second or two in case worst came to worst. Also, thinking over it later, maybe he was up to no good. I think my posture and facing him while putting my hand in my pocket like that may have sent a message that may have inhibited him. I don't know from the mental picture I have of your scene whether that would have been feasible or not; for right or for wrong though drawing did back her off.
If I'd had my dog with me as you did, backing away would have been harder, don't want to leave my dog to attack or to get attacked. I'd certainly want to be on my own property rather than off it, to get the most benefit from the law. Not always possible.
What you did doesn't sound too unreasonable to me. Could argue in the safety of my locked house far away from the situation that you could've should've not drawn, maybe maybe not. Did you call the police after? If not, that'd be the only criticism I'd level. If the gun comes out, or if I think something's going on where I might have to bring it out, I think getting on record with 911 first is very important. In your case, if you don't call the police, you're potentially open to her calling them and claiming you tried to rape/rob/kill her with your gun, and when they come screeching up there you are, a gunman fitting the description. Bad scene which has happened to some people who may have pulled a weapon with some or even total justification, but they got hosed nonetheless.
I worry most about this type of situation in your case, where you're maybe being set up but the bad guys haven't shown enough of his/their cards to necessarily justify drawing and perhaps using deadly force. Maybe it's just someone on drugs, maybe it's harmless, but what if you're about to be violently attacked? As civilians, and in my case without much in the way of hand to hand skills, I'm most vulnerable there in that gray area. I've thought about it, read my state law and a lawyer's advice, and still don't have great answers.
I try to rely on being aware of what's around me, and avoiding possible situations when armed. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to be able to CCW, but I pay a lot of credence to the people who stress how much a CCWer should always de-escalate, swallow pride, walk away.
I get some wiggle room myself out of how I carry (usually pocket holster with a 357 snubbie or a small 9mm). For instance, once my car broke down at the edge of a not so great neighborhood. Waiting for the tow truck, suddenly in a flash a "rice burner" screeches up behind me where I'm pulled up and a young "ethnic" guy jumps out and starts towards me. I wasn't freaked but I was concerned, and as I'd mentally rehearsed, I backed away from him while facing him, keeping my car between him and me, and put my hand on the pistol grip in my pocket holster. I think he was there to help, but if he'd intended harm, I would've had maybe another second and a half before he'd have been on me. My mode of carry allowed me to be ready to draw quickly, and backpedaling bought me another second or two in case worst came to worst. Also, thinking over it later, maybe he was up to no good. I think my posture and facing him while putting my hand in my pocket like that may have sent a message that may have inhibited him. I don't know from the mental picture I have of your scene whether that would have been feasible or not; for right or for wrong though drawing did back her off.
If I'd had my dog with me as you did, backing away would have been harder, don't want to leave my dog to attack or to get attacked. I'd certainly want to be on my own property rather than off it, to get the most benefit from the law. Not always possible.
Sigma 40 Blaster
New member
OK guys, I'm 6"5' and tip the scales at slightly over 330.
When I took my CHL training my instructor told me that I would have a hell of a time explaining a perfectly clean shooting if I was facing any less than two guys, at least one armed with a knife or one guy with a gun drawn. I am in the great state of Texas by the way.
Desparity of force is apparently a key issue, he explained the circumstances were a little different in an obvious robbery attempt/car jacking or a stick up at a store but a slightly ominous threat was not enough for me to brandish or shoot in a one on one situation.
He advised me to command the person to stop, back up to continue to give them space, and if they continued acting aggressively and I wasn't comfortable with hand to hand...facing someone obviously high or motivated to do harm is a mitigating circumstance IF you attempt to diffuse the situation or even flee and the threat continues.
I don't think acting crazy is enough...God knows I've had a lot of tweakers and nutsos try to scare me into giving them change or a ride. There's a difference between being scared and fearing for your life, remember if you even brandish a gun you are effectively sentencing that individual to a death sentence...just be sure what they're doing justifies that sentence.
Just my opinion...
When I took my CHL training my instructor told me that I would have a hell of a time explaining a perfectly clean shooting if I was facing any less than two guys, at least one armed with a knife or one guy with a gun drawn. I am in the great state of Texas by the way.
Desparity of force is apparently a key issue, he explained the circumstances were a little different in an obvious robbery attempt/car jacking or a stick up at a store but a slightly ominous threat was not enough for me to brandish or shoot in a one on one situation.
He advised me to command the person to stop, back up to continue to give them space, and if they continued acting aggressively and I wasn't comfortable with hand to hand...facing someone obviously high or motivated to do harm is a mitigating circumstance IF you attempt to diffuse the situation or even flee and the threat continues.
I don't think acting crazy is enough...God knows I've had a lot of tweakers and nutsos try to scare me into giving them change or a ride. There's a difference between being scared and fearing for your life, remember if you even brandish a gun you are effectively sentencing that individual to a death sentence...just be sure what they're doing justifies that sentence.
Just my opinion...
Did you call the police after? If not, that'd be the only criticism I'd level. If the gun comes out, or if I think something's going on where I might have to bring it out, I think getting on record with 911 first is very important. In your case, if you don't call the police, you're potentially open to her calling them and claiming you tried to rape/rob/kill her with your gun, and when they come screeching up there you are, a gunman fitting the description.
I did not call the police. I would have called if I didnt know all the Officers in my town, or if I didn't work with that department.
Texas or not I think a moral ethical person should retreat rather than use lethal force as long as they can do so in complete safety. In fact I think that when castle doctrine laws are passed it is partly due to the fact that most people can not imagine someone using lethal force if they could retreat in complete safety.
I would go so far as to say that anyone who does not agree that they should retreat rather than use lethal force when they can do so safetly is not mature and/or moral enough to own firearms. Over and over on this section of this forum I read guys defending their right to kill someone over property or some perceived right to "hold their ground". If the lawmakers and general population ever get the impression that these people represent even a substantial MINORITY of CCW holders states will start reversing their positions on CCW.
I would go so far as to say that anyone who does not agree that they should retreat rather than use lethal force when they can do so safetly is not mature and/or moral enough to own firearms. Over and over on this section of this forum I read guys defending their right to kill someone over property or some perceived right to "hold their ground". If the lawmakers and general population ever get the impression that these people represent even a substantial MINORITY of CCW holders states will start reversing their positions on CCW.
justme
Not at all the point of what I was saying. Did you read the comment my post was in reference to? His instructor made an ignorant statement that is total BS.
As far as killing over property, that is not the intent behind Castle Doctrine laws. The point is,if someone is in my house without my permsission, they are not there to do any good to me. They are there to do harm and that will be the position I assume until they can prove otherwise. If you do not leave my home after being warned, you are then a deadly threat and will be dealt with as such.
What gives you the right to judge another's morals? While I will not say that I am qualified to know when I can kill someone, I certainly know when I would and you certainly have no place to determine the morality of such an action. As far as the maturity of it, numerous background checks and interviews for my current employer allow me to carry firearms for work. Think I can handle it.
"Percieved right to hold their ground"? Seriously? You mean I have no right to stand firm and must cower and cave in to the criminal elements of this world? Wow.
If lawmakers actually had any sense, half of our gun laws would be nixed. When will people learn that making more laws to restrict weapons posession doesn't affect criminals? It only affects law-abiding citizens.
Texas or not I think a moral ethical person should retreat rather than use lethal force as long as they can do so in complete safety.
Not at all the point of what I was saying. Did you read the comment my post was in reference to? His instructor made an ignorant statement that is total BS.
In fact I think that when castle doctrine laws are passed it is partly due to the fact that most people can not imagine someone using lethal force if they could retreat in complete safety.
As far as killing over property, that is not the intent behind Castle Doctrine laws. The point is,if someone is in my house without my permsission, they are not there to do any good to me. They are there to do harm and that will be the position I assume until they can prove otherwise. If you do not leave my home after being warned, you are then a deadly threat and will be dealt with as such.
I would go so far as to say that anyone who does not agree that they should retreat rather than use lethal force when they can do so safetly is not mature and/or moral enough to own firearms.
What gives you the right to judge another's morals? While I will not say that I am qualified to know when I can kill someone, I certainly know when I would and you certainly have no place to determine the morality of such an action. As far as the maturity of it, numerous background checks and interviews for my current employer allow me to carry firearms for work. Think I can handle it.
Over and over on this section of this forum I read guys defending their right to kill someone over property or some perceived right to "hold their ground".
"Percieved right to hold their ground"? Seriously? You mean I have no right to stand firm and must cower and cave in to the criminal elements of this world? Wow.
If the lawmakers and general population ever get the impression that these people represent even a substantial MINORITY of CCW holders states will start reversing their positions on CCW.
If lawmakers actually had any sense, half of our gun laws would be nixed. When will people learn that making more laws to restrict weapons posession doesn't affect criminals? It only affects law-abiding citizens.
You mean I have no right to stand firm and must cower and cave in to the criminal elements of this world?
If that is the way you want to word it fine, yes, if you can retreat in complete safety then you have a moral and ethical responsibility to do so rather than use lethal force. If you believe that retreating is morally and ethically worse than using lethal force then yes, I judge your moral and ethical position to be lacking and immature. I am not alone in this belief. In fact, read Mas Ayoob's article in this months "concealed carry guns" (apologies if I got the name of the magazine wrong I don't have it here with me) he is more tactful than I and certainly expresses himself better, but he puts forth essentially the same argument.
Now, for a final plea before I get banned, , I am not and did not question Doug's moral makeup, but simply stated my view of the moral and ethical weakness of his proposed action in a given situation.
The only problem I have with this
is that it allows the criminal scum of our world even more chance to run amok and continue harrassing people. Not many criminals go out, break the law just one time and stop. Our criminal justice system is set up in such a way that the good guy is almost always screwed over and the criminal gets another free break. When do we, as law-abiding citizens, say "enough is enough"?
If that is the way you want to word it fine, yes, if you can retreat in complete safety then you have a moral and ethical responsibility to do so rather than use lethal force
is that it allows the criminal scum of our world even more chance to run amok and continue harrassing people. Not many criminals go out, break the law just one time and stop. Our criminal justice system is set up in such a way that the good guy is almost always screwed over and the criminal gets another free break. When do we, as law-abiding citizens, say "enough is enough"?
David Armstrong
Moderator
While deaf is mostly right, I think he leaves out an important segment of the law, which is that disparity of force is not sufficent in and of itself. There still has to be the reasonable fear of death or major injury sort of consideration or some other factor in conjunctio with the disparity issue.Disparancy of force. If the attacker is lots stronger than you, AND you cannot safely retreat, then you can treat the attack as a deadly one.
Wildalaska
Moderator
You mean I have no right to stand firm and must cower and cave in to the criminal elements of this world?
In some situations, yes.
WildthatsthelawAlaska ™
That's bull
That is just ridiculous. When is somebody going to stand up for those doing right? I may not shoot to protect my wallet, but I'm getting some licks in I hope. I want the person to remember the personthey tried to take advantage of.
DougOshouldbethepresidentsoguncontrolwoulddisappear83
Quote:
You mean I have no right to stand firm and must cower and cave in to the criminal elements of this world?
In some situations, yes.
WildthatsthelawAlaska ™
That is just ridiculous. When is somebody going to stand up for those doing right? I may not shoot to protect my wallet, but I'm getting some licks in I hope. I want the person to remember the personthey tried to take advantage of.
DougOshouldbethepresidentsoguncontrolwoulddisappear83
David Armstrong
Moderator
Society in general defines moral behavior based on the judgement of another's actions.What gives you the right to judge another's morals?
That is sort of strange reasoning. very few background checks and interviews are designed to determine maturity levels, particularly maturity as it relates to carrying firearms. A quick look at lots of LE and armed security shows that quite obviously.As far as the maturity of it, numerous background checks and interviews for my current employer allow me to carry firearms for work.
Just out of curiousity, are you unable to realize that there are many alternatives available between those two poles?You mean I have no right to stand firm and must cower and cave in to the criminal elements of this world?
David Armstrong
Moderator
Part of the problem comes from those who argue they are doing right and refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of positions other than their own.When is somebody going to stand up for those doing right?
In other words, it seems, you feel that you should get to decide what the laws should be and should get to be judge, jury and executioner regarding those laws. That is not doing right, and stuff like that is why we have some of the laws that have been passed.I want the person to remember the personthey tried to take advantage of.
"In some situations, yes" is not rediculous. It is close to the absolutes advocated by some, but arguably significantly more prudent.
Some of the advise put out in this thread is dangerous and outside the scope of any legal justification arguments I've come across before.
I hope the various readers, who may or may not be able to spot it, checks their locally appolicable laws for clarification.
Some of the advise put out in this thread is dangerous and outside the scope of any legal justification arguments I've come across before.
I hope the various readers, who may or may not be able to spot it, checks their locally appolicable laws for clarification.