Run Away!

Hallo TailGator -

"Kiss the pavement," you're right, a touch colorful.

Stop and drop --- for the perp threatening armed robbery --- Suffice it to say I would make it abundantly clear that I wanted them on the ground, facedown, arms and legs spread. Whether they comply is up to them. If the BG withdraws, thats fine, I am in no danger and my gun is still concealed. If he attacks, I defend myself, meaning I draw and shoot.

Stop and back-off (withdraw) --- Is for when I am 100% sure the person moving towards me is dangerous but has not verbally threatened me or shown a weapon. If he continues moving towards me I would try to withdraw and put distance between us. If he attacks, I defend myself.

(Example --- My wife was once pushing the baby stroller late at night. She heard a quick succession of footfalls behind her, she wheeled and in a firm clear voice shouted -- "STOP, BACK OFF." It worked.)

"You yourself indicated that when an assailant sees you are armed he might surrender or flee (if you can forgive the paraphrase)." [TailGator] Did not say that, hope I did not imply that.

The only time the assailant will see my gun is when it is drawn...if he sees it at all...and I don't draw unless I am under deadly attack...point being the bad guy will be attacking me, likely 3-8 feet from me...the perp has been warned, all I can do now is draw and fire.

I would never shoot someone who is withdrawing, fleeing, or otherwise surrendering. But understand, any talking I do, my gun is concealed. It only comes out when I have to use it.

When the gun comes out, it goes boom, because if it doesn't go boom, I get cut, or shot, or battered, etc.

Hope this clarifies things, thanks for your comments.
 
Only drawing with intent to shoot...

... ignores the statistic that in over 90% of cases when a gun is drawn for self-defense, the attack stops without shots fired.

So, the odds are good that drawing the weapon will be a strong deterrent.

One can't count on the draw alone doing the job, and one should be prepared to actually shoot, but one should not discount the extremely strong possibility that the draw itself will deter the BG.

Some folks seem to argue that they worry about a brandishing charge in such instances.

My counter to that is simple: In order to avoid a "brandishing" charge, you are willing to let the situation develop to where you may have to face a "homicide", "manslaughter", or "aggravated assault with battery while using a firearm" charge; how does this make sense?

To the poster who said he wouldn't draw until he saw a weapon: better hope you're a faster draw than the BG if he really has one; also, who says he'll draw from his pocket? I wouldn't need to, with my 442.... A BG who actually has gun in pocket could just shoot without drawing.
 
A perp can draw from anywhere. In a showdown NEVER lose sight of the perps hands.

4 tenths of a second (with one accurate shot) is the best I can do. Not Bill Jordan speed, but it'll have to do.
 
I see no logic to the general attitude in this thread - ie, the results of the OP's action were positive; therefore, his actions were wise. That is no better than a gambler going in and betting his home and life savings on one spin of the roulette wheel. Ok, he won the spin and won a billion dollars; therefore, the gambler's actions were wise. :rolleyes:

The results of the encounter were actually determined by the actions of the bad guy. If he had been armed and had chosen to draw and shoot, the results of the encounter would likely have been different and the thread responses likely would have drifted toward critizing the OP's decision to turn and run and leave the bad guy with ultimate control.

Being a mathematician, I would NEVER allow anyone to convince me that the roll of the dice coming up seven the first roll indicated that would be the wise bet every time I roll the dice. Having seen one outcome out of many possiblilities is not a smart way of calculating the odds for a positive outcome in general.
 
Seaman, I think we shall just have to agree to disagree. I see no reason that a person intent on an armed or strong-arm robbery would stop and get down on the ground just because you or I said so. This scenario reminds me in some ways of the idea that bad guys will observe signs and laws prohibiting them from having guns, in that their lack of respect for rules is what makes them bad guys to begin with. I would have zero expectation of compliance if I gave such an order without drawing. Perhaps you have a more authoritative voice than do I.

I am trying to imagine a situation where I would feel justified in ordering a stranger to the ground but not justified in clearing leather, and I honestly can't come up with one.

Plus, as MLeake said more eloquently and accurately than I, your policy loses you the very real opportunity to end the threat by producing a firearm but not firing.
 
Posted by Seaman: I would order him to stop and kiss the pavement, then call in the cavalry, and you wanna know I wouldn't take my eyes off the BG excepting glances to my six.
Click to expand...
I am not sure why you think it would be wise to issue such an unenforceable command without having given any indication that you are armed, or why it would be to your benefit as someone who is not a sworn officer to try to hold the person in the first place.

I'm sure you are well aware that you may not shoot simply because he chooses to not comply.

I'm not sure you have considered the legal risks, criminal and civil, that you would face should he turn out to be unarmed and dispute your account of the encounter.

And, of course, the tactical risks--getting shot in the back or side by his accomplice while your attention is focussed on him, "glances to your six" notwithstanding.

Not the best idea, in my view.....

Whether and when one should draw in such a situation is going to depend on a lot of things and will require some quick judgment.

If it turns out that you were in fact in imminent danger and did not draw quickly enough, the outcome could be disastrous.

If you draw, and the danger dissipates with no shots having been fired, great.

If you draw and shoot and he drops a weapon, you have defended yourself against the immediate threat, and your action will then be the subject of an investigation.

If it turns out that he was unarmed and bluffing and you draw, or draw and shoot, you had better hope that you can produce some evidence of justification, and that you are not faced with unfavorable witness testimony.

The outcome for the OP was just fine.
 
TailGator:

I was trained by professionals who instructed me very clearly, if you are ATTACKED, you draw and shoot. Period.

As for the 90% that drawing and talking worked out for (MLeake stats), that's good, for the other 10%, hope they survived.

Anytime a gun is drawn many bad things can and do happen, I choose to avoid that.

"I'm sure you are well aware that you may not shoot simply because he chooses to not comply." [OldMarksman]

No mention of that in any of my posts. Read them all. Thank you for your comments.

In the real life example cited, I would have ordered the perp to stop and drop, (he would have complied, withdrawn or attacked) I would not have drawn unless attacked.

You're a good man TailGator, I have family in Florida, next visit I'll stop in at a local PD and see what they think of my sd protocol.

All the best.
 
Posted by Seaman: I was trained by professionals who instructed me very clearly, if you are ATTACKED, you draw and shoot. Period.
Click to expand...
I respectfully suggest that that instruction is oversimplified, or that it is incorrect, or that you have remembered it incorrectly.

What's wrong with it? First, to justify the use of deadly force or the threat thereof, the threat must be imminent and very serious (capable of causing death or serous bodily harm), and you must have no other means of avoiding the danger; second, your having drawn does not mean that you have to shoot.

I suggest that you study this, very carefully.

So, to try to put it in the terms of a decision tree:

  1. Do you have reason to believe that the person, or persons, have the ability, the opportunity, and the intent to cause death or serious bodily harm? If no--do not draw; if yes, go to (2).
  2. Do you have any safe (to you) means of avoiding such harm, short of threatening or using deadly force?If yes, avail yourself of the alternative; if no, draw, and go to (3). Note: there is no requirement that an actual attack has been started.
  3. Does your presentation of a weapon cause the imminent danger to dissipate? If yes--do not shoot; if no, you may shoot.

There are minor variations in a couple of jurisdictions, namely, Arizona and Texas.

I hope you find this helpful.

In the real life example cited, I would have ordered the perp to stop and drop,...
Click to expand...
And should he for some strange reason comply, you would now be liable for anything that may happen to him, your fault or not, and you would be potentially subject to criminal sanctions, should you be unable to produce adequate evidence that he had in fact committed the kind of offense that justifies a citizen's arrest in your jurisdiction.

All downside, no upside. Better to leaver that to trained, indemnified, sworn officers.
 
Last edited:
Seaman,

1) If you are ATTACKED, draw and shoot. Makes perfect sense, the attack has already commenced. (Assuming the sort of attack that justifies deadly force.)

But that doesn't address the period where you are threatened, before the attack has commenced.

2) Trained by which professionals? In what environment?

You do realize a lot of posters here are LE, right? And many others are military, right?

There are a lot of posters here who've had much more training than I have had. With that in mind, I've received training on the military side from instructors from several services, including Navy Master-at-Arms, Marine drill instructors, Army drill sergeants, and ODA members. (I was not on an ODA; I just happened to luck out on some liaison duty, and I never turn down free ammo and range time.) On the civilian side, had an initial session in 2001 and later refresher in 2007 for a Florida CCW (those covered legal aspects more than tactical).

For hostile conditions, leaving the weapon holstered or slung when under imminent threat would be considered ridiculous, and probably dereliction of duty in a military context.

For peacetime conditions or non-permissive ROE, all of those instructors taught the theory of escalation of force, or force continuum. None said to leave the weapon holstered until it was absolutely necessary to shoot. Not one.

I'll attend Massad Ayoob's MAG-40 class later this year, and I suspect he also won't teach "leave it holstered until you decide to shoot the guy." I'll have to let you know his take on it this August.

3) I never said drawing and talking would be the end-all. In fact, I specifically said not to expect that to be the end-all, but to be ready for the possibility that it might end the scenario. But even though I'm in good shape, and of reasonable size (6'/210) I don't particularly expect a potential attacker to stop because I tell him to, if he doesn't see the weapon.

If he stops when he sees the weapon, so much the better. If he doesn't, the weapon is drawn and ready, and I'm actually a pretty good shot.

4) Speaking of drawn and ready, do you get that .4 second draw time you mentioned from a concealed holster? If so, from under how many layers of clothing? Have you tried it when a BG is already in physical contact? Have you ever had clothing snag, or some other hindrance that slowed down your draw? What do you suppose the odds are that Murphy will have some say in your draw speed, if you wait until you really need to shoot?
 
Last edited:
"Trained by which professionals? In what environment?" [MLeake]

Training done by professionals (at a Michigan State approved training facility) with umpteen years of military and police background who certified me as part of the requirements pursuant to the aquisition of a Michigan Concealed Pistol License.

"But that doesn't address the period where you are threatened, before the attack has commenced."[Ibid]

I agree, its a gray area...I'm not saying your method is incorrect, whatever brings you out intact is fine with me...I'm just saying I was taught differently, for me it lessens the chances of gunplay, the last thing I want to do is draw the gun, and I will do anything I can to safely avoid violence. Depending on the situation I might just punch out the perp, but I would not draw the gun unless attacked.

"For hostile conditions, leaving the weapon holstered or slung when under threat would be considered ridiculous, and probably dereliction of duty in a military context." [Ibid]

The CPL is not a military license.

"Do you get that .4 second draw from a concealed holster? Under how many layers of clothing? Have you tried it when a BG is already in physical contact? Have you ever had clothing snag, or some other hindrance that slowed down your draw? What do you suppose the odds are that Murphy will have some say in your draw speed, if you wait until you really need to shoot? " [Ibid]

Yes, one layer, no, no, Murphy or....Lady Luck has been with me so far.

The (fast draw) gun I carry is the perfect rough and tumble gun, that can pretty much be used as easily as you use your fist.

The whole trick in my fast draw is not fast draw, its more like fast illusion, the body is almost motionless, almost like a magician's trick where something is magically produced from nothing.

Thank you for the interesting comments.

PS --- OldMarksman, just saw your post, thank you, I'll comment once I've reviewed it.
 
"And should he for some strange reason comply, you would now be liable for anything that may happen to him, your fault or not, and you would be potentially subject to criminal sanctions, should you be unable to produce adequate evidence that he had in fact committed the kind of offense that justifies a citizen's arrest in your jurisdiction." [OldMarksman]

An excellent point. The perp may well be unarmed, and likely deny all wrongdoing.

Its a cruel world, since the time of Jesus, the criminal has had the advantage: he plans, picks his ground, and commits the crimes, and somehow the good citizen must successfully defend himself, all the while avoiding physical and monetary harm.

Thanks for the web referral, I'll check with my police contacts and if there is anything new to report, I shall do.
 
Interesting thread - by the way, police contacts aren't the sole decider if you get in trouble. You might want to discuss things with local DAs and/or self-defense attorneys.

Since lots of us know police, attorneys, trainers, etc. - who teach more than just getting a carry license course and DON'T ever say you must shoot if you draw, I suggest more research is needed.

License courses from that one 'expert' dude can get strange at times. :rolleyes:
 
Training done by professionals (at a Michigan State approved training facility) with umpteen years of military and police background who certified me as part of the requirements pursuant to the aquisition of a Michigan Concealed Pistol License.
Click to expand...


Thats why you use terms like "check six":rolleyes::D

WildthreatplateAlaska ™©2002-2011
 
Originally Posted by Glenn Bartley
...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?...

In my view that should not properly be a consideration.
Click to expand...
How presumptive to think I was asking that as if it were a consideration as to whether or not the original poster should have shot the bad guy. It was only a question about he he felt afterwards and about he he may have felt afterwards had things turned out differently. Remember, this post was not solely about whether or not he handled it properly but how he felt afterwards. I was making an inquiry, not suggesting he draw and fire a weapon based upon any sort of comic book or fantasy novel seer saying ability based upon his emotions. You implied way too much, about what you think I was getting at, from a question I asked.

How anyone here interprets that as me advocating shooting someone on how you think you may later feel, well you are just being quite less than inciteful.

One person here did mention that he was amazed at how folks like me, he used my words to quote, think that we are responsible for the actions of others. I do not beleive that unless I trick or force others to do something. I beleive I am responsible for my own actions and not those of anyone else. I also believe though, I am responsible for my own inaction and that to take no action can at times be morally wrong or can be wrong in my line of thinking; I also know that in fact it can also be legally wrong in certain types of cases. (I am not saying in this type of case.) Yet none of that was in my queston. I asked someone how he thought he would have felt if things had turned out differently in specific ways and pointed out how I would feel. None of that was to make a person think, not even for a moment, that how you think you would feel later would justify shooting earlier.


All the best,
GB
 
Lahey,

The action you took was the very best thing you could have done. Lawyers are quick to tell people what the should, or should not do. They don't tell you how to live with it after wards. In law enforcement we had a 90-10, 10-90 concept that sure seemed to be right on the ball. 90-10 means 90% of the people only do 10% of the crime, and 10-90 means 10% of the people do 90% of the crime. Killing someone is as big a crime as we know of. It seems as if everyone who kills someone, such as in this case, at some time that person sits in judgement of what they did. They will know if the reason they did so was because it was the only thing they could do to stay alive. Or if it was because they thought they could get away with it. Today, when so many murders are "thrill killings" the fact that so many of these killers don't realize what they've done until much later is terrible. So many of them can't handle it. If thy cannot handle it, what chance does a decent person such as yourself
do. I don't know if you have reached that point yet or not, but after that the healing starts. You may be called different names by those who tell you you should have killed the man, but they are idiots. You did a damn good job! :)
 
To the OP,
Everything turned out well for you,nobody was injured, so you must have done everything right in that situation.
Had it been me, I'm sure my reaction to the predator's hand-in-pocket approach would have been like LordTio3's "tactical disengagement"; my gun would have been pointed at his center-mass while I moved to the drivers seat to roll away from him.
(I like that ....... "TACTICAL DISENGAGEMENT" [thanks LordTio3]........ Chesty Puller called it "attacking in a different direction".)
 
Sorry I haven't been back to check on my thread, I had a busy weekend. Thanks for the comments.

To clear up a few things:

1. I didn't have to turn my back on him to jump in my car. He approached from the side/front of the car at about 10 o'clock. I was able to keep my eyes on him and get to the driver's door with a short sidestep. I would not have felt as good about that move if I had to turn my back, and probably would have hustled off in a different direction.

2. I don't know how bad the guy at the mexican restaurant was beaten, but it wasn't bad enough to charge him with the felony version of the battery charge. That would have required "serious bodily injury", as I recall. But in any case, tough luck for him. I'm not psychic and I'm not a cop.
 
Glenn Bartley said:
How presumptive to think I was asking that as if it were a consideration as to whether or not the original poster should have shot the bad guy. It was only a question about he he felt afterwards and about he he may have felt afterwards had things turned out differently. Remember, this post was not solely about whether or not he handled it properly but how he felt afterwards. I was making an inquiry, not suggesting he draw and fire a weapon based upon any sort of comic book or fantasy novel seer saying ability based upon his emotions. You implied way too much, about what you think I was getting at, from a question I asked.
Click to expand...

It may not have been explicit, but suggesting that someone might have felt better had he acted differently in a particular situation clearly implies, I think, that you believe he ought to have acted differently. Claiming that you are "just asking a question" about how he felt doesn't change this, it just gives you some prevaricatory wiggle room.

One person here did mention that he was amazed at how folks like me, he used my words to quote, think that we are responsible for the actions of others. I do not beleive that unless I trick or force others to do something. I beleive I am responsible for my own actions and not those of anyone else. I also believe though, I am responsible for my own inaction and that to take no action can at times be morally wrong or can be wrong in my line of thinking; I also know that in fact it can also be legally wrong in certain types of cases. (I am not saying in this type of case.)
Click to expand...
Again, implied criticism of the way Mr. Lahey responded to this situation. I think it's important to point out that he did take very effective action to help stop the man who threatened him. From his first post:
B. Lahey said:
Thanks in part to some of the excellent tips I received in my last hairy-situation thread (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=385645), I was able to give the cops a very detailed description and they picked him up with little trouble.
Click to expand...
So he was able, under stress, accurately to note details of the man's appearance, and he gave the police that description, which enabled them to catch him. This is a job well done, and not some sort of morally suspect "failure to act," which is what your comments imply.

Edited to add:
The question of whether one's conduct should be guided by how he expects to feel about it after the fact is an interesting one. This may actually be a sign of a high level of moral development...
 
Last edited:
Perfect

I just don't see how anybody is second guessing Mr. Lahey. He identified a threat before it was upon him, evaluated it and took charge with a strong command letting the BG know he was "made", then Mr. Lahey kept moving and created distance with an obstacle between him and the BG (also would have served as primary cover if needed), found an avenue of escape and took it, de-escalating the entire event. :cool:

Perfect. He turned what-might-have-been into a non-event to be posted on a forum from the safety of his home. If you're going to carry a gun, you better check your ego at the door, gentlemen. You want to be Charles Bronson, you'll likely do hard time and lose everything you're trying to protect. :eek:

Mr. Lahey, i hope i do as well as you did should the need ever arise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top