Run Away!

Well done. Had you shot him, fear not withstanding, chances are he would have survived to tell a harrowing tale that differed from the truth. Oh that poor homeless man!

And remember, you didn't run away, you made a tactical advance in an unencumbered direction.

"My nephew told me killing a person isnt so good for the one doing the killing. He just got back from Iraq and Afganistan."

Probably better for him than the one killed, I'd wager. Even in war, killing isn't easy, but beats the alternative for sure.
 
I think the movies and TV shows have influenced our attitudes about "running away". A wild animal, say a tiger or grizzly bear, has no qualms about running away if the situation doesn't seem right, they may turn on a dime and attack but the "running away" part- no self esteem problem.
Same thing in combat, a good way to get killed is deciding you are never going to run away, retreat to good fighting ground and then kill the SOB. In any event, NEVER worry about "running away", absolutely the right thing to do in most circumstances. If the guy comes after you then you know for sure you are justified in shooting, you've bought yourself a precious couple of seconds to plan your actions, you can unexpectingly wheel around and shoot the SOB and save your life. :cool:
 
Well good for you.

I don't know that I would have run away, in fact, I am fairly certain I would have shot him without hesitation had I beleived my life was threatened and could get the shot off. Certainly, I would have had to have been in that exact situation in your place to be sure but I am, as I said, fairly certain of what would have happened had it been me.

You said that you felt good about evading danger, and that is very understandable but I wonder, how do you feel about the other guy having been beaten? How would you have felt if he had been maimed, or killed? (Any information on how badly beaten the other victim was?) Would you have felt better then had you shot the bad guy? I am sure that if I put down a guy who had just tried to rob me, I would feel badly, I would feel guilty for having hurt or killed another person even if I had been fully justified. I also know, if I ran and the guy I evaded went on to hurt someone else I would feel miserable I had not stopped him when I had the chance. That is just me, just wondering how you think you would feel if such happened. I am not saying you should feel one way or another or that you did right or wrong, just asking.

Now for my own witty saying: Violence is often the last resort of the dying man, as he vainly struggles to survive. Had he resorted to violence sooner, he may have lived longer.

All the best,
Glenn B
 
Glenn Bartley said:
...You said that you felt good about evading danger, and that is very understandable but I wonder, how do you feel about the other guy having been beaten? How would you have felt if he had been maimed, or killed? ... Would you have felt better then had you shot the bad guy?...
Click to expand...
In my view that should not properly be a consideration.

First, you have no idea, and can't predict and can't be responsible for what your assailant may do. And you have no duty to take action. You are not a cop.

Second, your first duty is to yourself, your family and those who may depend on you.

Third, if you do shoot, you can't know if it will be immediately accepted as justified. Maybe the local district attorney thinks it's a bad idea to encourage citizens to shoot unarmed, alleged robbers; so maybe the DA prosecutes. Now you need to establish you were justified. You could wind up throwing away your kids' college educations. You could lose your job and your house. You could put yourself and family through months or years of emotional travail and economic hardship. In my view a truly lousy idea, especially when done to avoid an uncertain, highly speculative result.
 
Doesn't sound like it worked out so well for the guy who got beat up at the Mexican restaraunt who got beat up. What if he did have a gun and shot the next guy, you'd be OK with knowing you could have prevented that?

We have stand your ground law in this state. That's something I've always done even before shall issue became law. It's not something I'll change now that I am armed. Just plain luck that he didn't blow your head off as you were driving away, I wouldn't chalk that up to tactics.
 
Uhh, unless you can see the future, there's no way he could have known that someone would get beat up (or worse) later, and not your place to make that determination. It cracks me up to see the folks saying they would have just shot this guy. If you could articulate the belief that you were in danger, you could have been justified to draw on this toad, but not to shoot under these exact circumstances. You zap him for putting his hand in his pocket, and I guarantee you'll end up on the losing end here in the long run.

I'm not suggesting that someone should not protect themselves, but it must be done prudently. No need to beat up on the OP here for making the best decision for him at the time, given the circumstances.
 
First thing's first...

Great job. You are a respectable model citizen. We are lucky to have you in our community.

Secondly (and more nit-pickey);
I like to make a distinction between "Running Away" and "Tactically Disengaging".

Running away is what people do when they have no other options. It's a defensive move with no other intent than self preservation. It's a "Get me out of here!" response.

Tactically disengaging, however, is a result of assessing the situation and deciding that leaving the situation is the most desirable course of action in order to preserve the safety of the most people. It's not a fear response, it's a calculated decision. It takes a quick mind, a cold head, and a steady hand. This is what I believe you accomplished and I commend you for it.

Tactically disengaging is one of our best options in any defense scenario; being a large part of our overall optimum outcome of Nonviolent resolution.

Well done, Sir.

~LT
 
Well at least the guy who finally did go to jail was the one who actually deserved it.

Right, at least the OP didn't go to jail.
 
Well hindsight is always 20/20 so its a win! If I was packing I probably would have drawn on the guy, hoped he didn't charge or draw, hopped in the car, took off, called the police.
 
A soon as he said he was planning on robbing me and put the hand in his pocket, I would have probably drawn on him. Your way worked and is probably the smarter way forward.
The best outcome prevailed. Everyone lived, and that's what matters.
 
We who carry should always try to avoid shooting, not look for excuses TO shoot. It's about self-defense, bottom line.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with this.

However, in this situation, I wouldn't have had a problem if you did shoot.

What's to say you turned to get into your car & he shoots you?

Again, I have no problem with your decision, I most likely would have done the same thing. I also would not have had a problem had you shot him, but a judge and jury might have seen things differently.

You never know.
 
Slight misconception here,,,

I've read some silly things in these forums,,,
I've posted some fairly inane things in these forums.

This might top them all.

What if he did have a gun and shot the next guy, you'd be OK with knowing you could have prevented that?
Click to expand...

I say,,, Huh?

He is an armed citizen for self defense,,,
Not an armed vigilante.

...you'd be OK with knowing you could have prevented that?
Click to expand...

He's not an Oracle either.

~Sheesh!~

Aarond
 
IMHO, in this scenario the BG is putting his hand in his pocket to intimidate you. He knows you will think he has a concealed weapon. If you are in a situation where a BG is possibly holding a concealed weapon, has the ability and intent to use it... I think you have ever right to react with equal force. I don't think you can shoot cause the guy put his hand in his pocket, but you certainly can draw on the guy with every intent of using deadly force if the BG makes his move. Massad Ayoob talks about this in "The Gravest Extreme" to some degree, where the good guy is usually at a disadvantage because he morally and legally cannot make the first move.

Its certainly a grey area if the threat has been made, the BG has shown that he possibly has a weapon, but no weapon has been revealed. At the distance we are talking about, it could be a simple steak knife or any ol piece of hard object "shank" which would pose extreme danger to you. Police have shot people in this same scenario MANY times. Lets say you do draw and shoot... turns out the guy was poking his finger in his shirt to make it look like he has a pistol. Certainly a sticky situation legally, and you will have to live with yourself for shooting an unarmed man (granted he may have thrown away any chance for your pity when he put you in that situation).
 
Bottom line, you survived and lived to tell the tale and I am happy for that.

As for the guy at the Mexican restaurant who took a needless beating...he shoulda had a carry permit, a small 25, 32, or even 380 woulda saved his bacon.
 
Yeah, I wouldn't even think about what this dude did after you didnt, but could have, shot him. Most of the general public have no concern over their own safety. Why should that responsibility fall on you? You're no law man or vigilante. You just got held up and decided NOT to shoot the dude for it.
 
Glenn Bartley said:
You said that you felt good about evading danger, and that is very understandable but I wonder, how do you feel about the other guy having been beaten? How would you have felt if he had been maimed, or killed? (Any information on how badly beaten the other victim was?) Would you have felt better then had you shot the bad guy? I am sure that if I put down a guy who had just tried to rob me, I would feel badly, I would feel guilty for having hurt or killed another person even if I had been fully justified. I also know, if I ran and the guy I evaded went on to hurt someone else I would feel miserable I had not stopped him when I had the chance.
Click to expand...

aarondhgraham said:
He is an armed citizen for self defense,,,
Not an armed vigilante.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's a source of endless fascination to me, in these discussions, that so many forum members are quick to say that if you don't shoot a "bad guy," you're somehow responsible for what he does after that. And it's often the same members who are quick to say that if a "good guy" accidentally shoots an innocent bystander while "taking out" a "bad guy," the good guy shouldn't be held responsible for the injury or death of the innocent; after all, he meant well. :cool:

We are responsible for, and have to live with, our own actions; we're not responsible for what other people may do.
 
While I'm certainly glad that you're alright, that you didn't have to shoot anybody (the absolute last resort, without a doubt), and that you made decisions and acted decisively, there is still something that bugs me a little. As a couple of other posters have mentioned, what if the perp had not been bluffing? In my view, putting myself in your place, a threat is a threat regardless of the underlying truth because at that moment I don't (and can't) know whether the perp is armed and really intends to kill me. I have to react as if my life were in danger because for all I know it may be about to end within seconds! :eek:

Now, don't get me wrong--my first (and only, at least initially) priority is surviving the encounter, preferably unharmed, and without shooting anybody if at all possible. If I could escape quietly without endangering myself or even drawing my gun, then that's what I'd do. That said, what I would NOT do is allow a bad guy to outdraw and shoot me first (especially in the back) if I can prevent it. There's nothing wrong with retreat being the preferred option, but any notion of "duty to retreat" ends as soon as my life is actually threatened. I'd say that a guy who is trying to rob me reaching for his pocket in a threatening manner must be treated as a serious threat, and my response would be pointing a gun at him, ready to shoot (and evade any incoming fire) in an instant if he continues to escalate the situation.

If this is not a valid use of a gun, then aside from the obvious case of a home invasion, when can one use a gun (shooting only if forced to) in self-defense and for what reasons? I'd rather not wait to get shot first if I could have threatened the bad guy and thereby possibly avoided bloodshed altogether (or at least my own).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top