Run Girly-Man, run!

Hi, Brian here. I'll admit my dry sense of humor and sometimes facetious manner. Yes, I carry. Didn't respond 'til today because I haven't been back here to check on answers until just now. Thanks everyone...

That said, I'll say that I "like" the meekness answer the best. All of the avoidance and 'avoid pride' answers were right on. Legally you can't show or use lethal force unless you (or someone) are in immediate danger of grave harm or death. The LEO (one of them?) came closest to answering the purse snatcher question and I agree ...material posessions are not something to worry about and if you are carrying, you can't risk the gun being out of control and in the bad guy's hands. Someone else said that too.

I probably could've stated my hypothetical situation a bit better too. The general topic is "What to do if you know darn well that you can stop a bad action, but can't risk the gun getting involved?" Someone grabbing a kid and running is probably a better one than a purse or some material theft situation. I'm not sure if kid-snatching counts ...you can't tell so easily if a situation is 'bad' or just 'looks bad', even though some do end up in death or grave harm to someone _later on_. The law says you can't use your lethal force until the threat becomes real and immediate. I guess a hand on the gun together with a loudly shouted command to stop and say "I have a gun" might give the perp a chance to explain? Oh well ...these situations are rare and real life has a way of clarifying things for you. But the bottom line is that you can't show or use lethal force until it's about to be used on you or someone you choose to protect. Sometimes you will just have to watch and let something happen I suppose.

'preciate it.

Brian
 
Oh yes, I like the alternative but affective force solution too ...the pepper spray in particular may be a way to "reach out and touch someone" without getting close enough to risk a gun grab. Some of the new long-shot Grizzly bear repellents ought to work. Keep the dominant hand free and shoot the spray with the nondominant hand. Shout angry commands.

And personally, I feel no shame whatsoever if someone doesn't like me or says bad things, even Girly Man (I still chuckle when I think of Arnold using that term to the Girly Men he was addressing...). My original question was a "what if" for a situation that may require immediate action but you don't want to get too close ...I think I have the answers that I need. Thx.

Brian
 
Conservadude said:
Like if you saw some bum stealing someone's purse, you can't go shove him off and take the purse back ...
Click to expand...
Not getting into stupid fights is a good idea whether you have a defensive firearm on you or not.

But I don't follow why carrying a defensive weapon means you have to let some bum steal someone's purse in front of you when you would otherwise try to stop them from committing a felony. :confused:
 
zonamo wrote:

But I don't follow why carrying a defensive weapon means you have to let some bum steal someone's purse in front of you when you would otherwise try to stop them from committing a felony.
Click to expand...

Okay, heres a hypothetical situation. Our superhero, 2nd ammendment man,
(you) is standing on the street corner. Over out of the corner of your eye
you spot a miscreant stealing an old ladies purse. He turns to run as she
screams something about her pension check! Being the fearless champion of
justice that you are, (you have a gun now) you give chase down the crowded
sidewalk. You catch him. There is a mighty struggle. Blows are exchanged.
During the struggle, your firearm comes free and falls to the ground, or
bad guy grabs it....either way, previously UNARMED bad guy, is now ARMED
with YOUR GUN! He fires at you! With your superhuman speed, (and ninja
training) you drop to the ground, and the bullet passes over your head........
right into the chest of that little girl waiting for the bus! Bad guy drops your
gun and runs away, now there you stand, with YOUR GUN, USED IN A
MURDER, that YOU CAUSED (in the laws eyes) because you brought a gun
into an otherwise non-lethal situation...................

Just a reality check.......
 
Reality check

And as you stand there holding your smoking gun while the little girl bleeds out in front of you, a METEOR drops out of the sky in two pieces, one of which hits and kills you so you never have to go to trial, and the other hits the perp but only permanently cripples him so he has to live the rest of his life a victim, and . . .

There will always be a scenario someone can dream up illustrating why not to do something. Then there is real life, granted with all its quirks and turns that complicate things.

In the "what if" department--I used to skydive. When I saw my first sport jumper bounce, I really questioned whether what I was doing for fun was worth it, especially when I had watched both his main and reserve chutes fail. After the initial shock wore off, our team kept jumping, making some adjustments to equipment or technique--learning from another's fatal lesson, but not hiding from life. The second time I saw one die, it wasn't so difficult, because I knew it was more his lack of preparation and poor emergency procedure execution than the gear's fault.

Sometimes our luck just runs out. Even hiding in your house won't necessarily help, because a meteor could still hit it, and you.

Of course, these are personal decisions. Properly trained and equipped, with the proper mental attitude, there is a lot even a citizen can do to reduce crime, but it is not his "responsibility" under the law. There are positive and potentially negative consequences. You have to weigh them out and live with your decision in the moral realm also. It is those who are ill-equipped and lack foresight and training who most often get themselves into trouble. They committ when they should not.

I agree that the presence of a concealed handgun elevates responsibility and awareness. I agree one should not escalate a personal encounter. I agree there are many situations where others are victims that would dictate you just be a good witness, even though or especially because you have a concealed handgun.

But if fear of the great "what ifs" and prosecution are such controlling influences in one's life, why carry? Just be a victim, and allow others who are unprepared or unaware be victims, even if they are too old or young or weak to defend themselves and you are their only hope. You are the one who has to deal with his concscience, as well as the law and financial considerations.

The wise person knows when to get involved, and when to stay away. If I understand the force continuum, have less-than-lethal options and a good opportunity to influence positively the outcome of a bad situation, I would likely help. To many, having a gun means a gun is the only solution to a problem. Not true.

Unarmed criminals are usually wimps. That's why they ply their trade. The least interference from a competent person will often scare them away. My gun carried in Thunderwear is not coming out unless I get it out.

An armed criminal doing something wrong is already a felon. Armed felons induce fear of one's life for myself or others. Still, pulling your gun may not be the best tactic, depending on the situation. Scenarios such as those that started this thread have so many variables not stated as to make them real excercises in "what if" propositions. Would we be able to process a lot more information at the scene and react quickly and correctly? Not necessarily, especially if without training and experience.

In Salt Lake City a few years ago, an armed man took a number of hostages in a library. One was an off duty sherriff's deputy in civilian clothing who was carrying a handgun. This officer waited over 40 minutes before the criminal escalated the situation. Then the officer shot and killed the perp, having tried with others to resolve the encounter without resorting to the ultimate solution he knew was available to him all along. No one else was hurt. Good tactics.

Sorry to ramble so long. My life experiences and values are different than anyone else's. What I would or would not do in a given situation may be instructive for others, but not necessarily controlling. I am not an authority on all this, although I guess I try to sound like one (don't we all?). Since we have different perspectives and very unclear scenarios, we can expect a lot of different responses, all of which may be right for the individual writing them, but perhaps wrong for many others.

I enjoy the dialogue. Carry on! CB3
 
I enjoy the dialogue. Carry on! CB3
Click to expand...

Exactly the reason for the original thread. One person alone is not good at coming up with the variety of situationals and responses that you get from the 'team'. Good stuff, Maynard. :D

Brian
 
Derius_T said:
There is a mighty struggle. Blows are exchanged. During the struggle, your firearm comes free and falls to the ground, or bad guy grabs it
Click to expand...
Cute scenario, but you didn't answer the question I actually asked. Obviously intervening under any conditions contains risk. That wasn't the question. The question raised in response to the original poster was why would the risk of intervening while unarmed be less than intervening while armed.

Do you really think the risk of losing the weapon you have properly secured, concealed, and practiced with is greater than the risk of being injured by said felon if he turns on you and assaults you while you are unarmed :confused:

If that is really how you see the probabilities concerned, my suggestion is to get a better holster and learn how to use it. Or better yet, just don't carry at all. It's apparently "safer."
 
zonamo - point is......say you enter the confrontation, start giving the guy the beat down for stealing purse....he pulls out a knife and stabs you. You
pull out your gun and shoot him. You should be a hero. You should walk
away freely. 90% chance you are going to jail. You chose to escallate a
non-lethal situation. If you had not struggled with the guy, you would never
have had to shoot him. Its not that I'm afraid. I'm an ex-soldier, and would
most likely tackle the guy before I even THOUGHT about it. BUT, you have
to consider the ramifications. The lady's check will be replaced, your years
as you rot in prison won't........
 
I suspect

that in some communities if you, hypothetically, tripped the purse snatcher as he went by, secured the purse, and ordered him at gunpoint to the ground, you might be on reasonably soldid legal grounds (Not Everywhere!!). Purse snatching is a violent felony here, and tourists have been preyed upon in such manner--although Reno is a fairly safe town. Don't recommend shooting if he fails to comply and runs away. If he advances toward you in an angry threatening manner, then you have a decision to make. Still think you're on solid ground here.

As far as walking up and confronting him, while he's going through the purse, I don't recommend it. You'll make him mad enough when you pull out your cell phone. Chances are, he'll grab the purse, take off, and in 5 min. you'll find the purse in the nearest trash can. Lastly, what if the woman is stuggling desperately to hang on to her purse and he's assaulting her in the process? Well, there comes a time when we have to make certain decisions all by ourselves.
 
Derius_T said:
say you enter the confrontation, start giving the guy the beat down for stealing purse....he pulls out a knife and stabs you. You pull out your gun and shoot him. You should be a hero. You should walk away freely. 90% chance you are going to jail
Click to expand...
Say you enter the confrontation, start giving the guy the beat down for stealing purse....he pulls out a knife and stabs you. You are unarmed. You should be a hero. You should walk away freely. 90% chance you are going to the morgue.

Sorry, I still fail to see how intervening while unarmed is less of a risk than intervening while armed. Unless you prefer being buried over facing a jury to defend your actions.

And whether a jury will send you to jail for defending against aggravated assault with a deadly weapon after lawfully attempting an arrest by private person for a witnessed felony robbery all depends on what state you live in.

But then, that wasn't the question either.
 
I would intervene in the same circumstances armed or unarmed. If you are armed, like for everything else, have a plan. Be prepared and equipped should someone try and disarm you. This is universal and applies whether you plan on intervening in scenarios like you describe or not.
 
Zonamo: Things are a little odd in my state. There was an instance here
locally a few years ago. Guy driving down the road, looks over in parking lot
and sees two guys struggling. One has the other on the ground, kicking the
crap out of him. Our good samaritan pulls over, jumps out, and runs to help.
As he gets close, guy standing turns towards him and yells something. Guy
on ground takes opportunity and grabs at his pocket, produces a knife, and
goes to stab it into standing guy. Our samaritan yells to drop the knife, he
doesn't, staggers to his feet, and starts wrestling with other guy.....stabs
other guy once in stomach and chest. They fall. Guy with knife on top.
He raises knife to end guy on bottom, our samaritan shoots guy with knife,
killing him instantly.

Hes a hero..............not quite. Turns out, the guy with the knife, who was
getting the beat down when dude pulls up, was the GOOD GUY. Other guy
was robbing and beating crap out of him. Guy defends himself with knife,
and gets double tapped for it. Our good samaritan was really sorry and
confused.......thinking he saved someones life.......but hes still in prison......

(This is how it was told to me, as near as I can remember.)
 
I agree Derius that the decision to intervene is fraught with risks, and the wisdom of doing so in any particular situation has to be carefully weighed as your anecdotal tale of shooting the victim shows. :)

My point was not really about that decision process but about the idea that one would somehow be more at risk intervening while armed. I just don't see it. Lak put it better he said that the condition of being armed would not change what circumstances he would decide to take action under. That is, after carefully weighing all the factors, either intervention is justified or it is not. Being armed is not really part of the equation of whether it is justified. I would go further and say that there are certain circumstances where even if intervening were the moral thing to do, it would be the unwise and riskier thing to do while unarmed.

The original premise except for the purse snatching scenario really seems to have been that one has to act more responsibly when armed, which I also agree with.

Perhaps the real lesson is we should learn to act in the same responsible manner even when we are unarmed.
 
Wish I was 6'4", 280....the bad guy can run his mouth all day....he would need to take his own gun out for me to even worry about him...heck, I'd be too busy playing pro ball and not even have to be around such people.
 
Mr. Bill wrote:

Wish I was 6'4", 280....the bad guy can run his mouth all day....he would need to take his own gun out for me to even worry about him...heck, I'd be too busy playing pro ball and not even have to be around such people.
Click to expand...

It was fun being that size when I was younger, but now I'm a broken down old man. :) Besides, I make a bigger target....... :(


And zonamo, I agree with what you are saying, to a point. But don't you
think there may be circumstances where someone would intervene BECAUSE
they are armed, in a situation where if they weren't armed, they wouldn't get
in the middle? Could the fact that they have a gun, cause an untrained
civilian to act rashly, out of a sense of 'empowerment'? I mean I know such
responsible and well trained people such as US would never act like that,
but is the temptation greater for your average civilian to 'act the hero' just
because they have the confidence of secretly being armed?
 
I think these stories of "concealed gun carrier goes to jail for stopping a bad guy" are just propaganda started by the anti-gunners.

I have been part of a jury in a case of a man who shot his neighbor because the neighbor was beating the crap out of his own kid.

The abusive father had former complaints of assaulting his wife.
Not a single juror member thought he was wrong to shoot the guy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top