Scenario: Unarmed assailant advancing
- Thread starter cracked91
- Start date
What if the approching man was in shock because he and his wife had just been attacked (by bear or other predator). He is the sole survivor and is in a daze. He may not even realize you have a gun pointed at him.
It'd be a shame to shoot him just because he walked towards you...
This case, however unlikely, is probably more likely than him being a deaf-mute with evil intentions.
It'd be a shame to shoot him just because he walked towards you...
This case, however unlikely, is probably more likely than him being a deaf-mute with evil intentions.
youngunz4life
New member
on an isolated lake, I am alone except for a rapidly moving person approaching from a distance, and I am openly carrying:
there is no way he is getting within 7 and I do not think all the things you mentioned in the original post would happen in the final 7
that being said as I got the just+you relayed a good scenario with many unknowns which would be there if this happened - I would be noticing him as to whether it was possible he had a weapon and I would communicate from a distance. if I had to, the communication would be much more clear & firm(but not hostile)so as I knew something was wrong if he kept advancing. that should be enough but it is always possible depending on the location that he has a buddy near too*Always expect the unexpected. If he just ignored me and kept rapidly advancing, I would definately draw and try once more to "reach him" as he advanced. In the great wide open, I would have time for all of this.
all the best
there is no way he is getting within 7 and I do not think all the things you mentioned in the original post would happen in the final 7
that being said as I got the just+you relayed a good scenario with many unknowns which would be there if this happened - I would be noticing him as to whether it was possible he had a weapon and I would communicate from a distance. if I had to, the communication would be much more clear & firm(but not hostile)so as I knew something was wrong if he kept advancing. that should be enough but it is always possible depending on the location that he has a buddy near too*Always expect the unexpected. If he just ignored me and kept rapidly advancing, I would definately draw and try once more to "reach him" as he advanced. In the great wide open, I would have time for all of this.
all the best
youngunz4life
New member
you never know!
a deaf guy will see the gun, so I don't shoot an innocent, nice person trying to 'reach me'
*always expect the unexpected
...but never wait for it to work out the good way because your life might depend on it...
a deaf guy will see the gun, so I don't shoot an innocent, nice person trying to 'reach me'
*always expect the unexpected
...but never wait for it to work out the good way because your life might depend on it...
jason_iowa
New member
The thing that comes to my mind first in any open carry situation is weapon retention. Keep yourself in a position where you can always protect your weapon and if they make an attempt to take it you use whatever force you have to to neutralize the situation. I only open carry a side arm when I have a long gun out while hunting for that very reason. Having a weapon in open sight makes you a target for the crazies.
The grounds for legal use of deadly force are pretty straightforward with only a few twists.
I would use the following general criteria for determining if the person posed a deadly threat to me.
1. Do I reasonably believe that he has a motive and/or clearly intends to attack me?
2. Do I reasonably believe that he has the means or ability to do me serious injury or cause my death?
3. Do I reasonably believe that an attack is imminent?
If I reasonably believed all of those things were true I would use the following general criteria for determining if deadly force was warranted.
1. Do I reasonably believe that there is no other reasonable means of preventing the approaching person from doing me serious injury or death than the use of deadly force?
2. Do I reasonably believe that the deadly force is immediately necessary to stop or prevent the approaching person from attacking?
If I reasonably believed all of those things then I would use deadly force against the approaching person.
As far as drawing, if all of the above were satisfied then it would obviously be legal to draw.
However, in my state, I would also be justified in drawing (but not shooting) if I reasonably believed that the approaching person was going to use unlawful force (even if it's not deadly force) and that there was no other reasonable option to prevent that unlawful use of force against me but to immediately use force to prevent it.
In TX, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, constitutes force but does not constitute the use of deadly force. So drawing would be legally justified if force were justified.
The scenario should be called: "Unarmed person advancing". By labelling the unarmed person an assailant you created a scenario that begs the question of whether the person in the scenario should respond with deadly force. Basically the entire uncertainty of how to respond in the scenario hinges on whether the person in the scenario determines that the advancing person is an assailant or not. But you state up front that he's an assailant which answers the question before it's asked even though no evidence that he actually is an assailant is presented in the initial scenario statement.
Pond James Pond
New member
I have to say, I fail to see the point in trying to examine this entirely hypothetical and biased situation. 
To invent a scenario that reads like a thriller is kind of loading the question towards one answer/reaction. Unless that is already the prefered reaction, in which case others' input is a bit obsolete.
On top of that, the thread title is "Unarmed assailant approaching". Hardly conducive to a reasoned evaluation.
For what its worth, the behaviour described sounds like acute disorientation. If in the woods that would be likely to be shock, some sort of trauma, or even hypothermia, given that crack cocaine addicts don't tend to go trekking.
If members like to review events that happened to them, or in the news to see if they or whoever had taken the best actions, fine: learning from someone else's experiences.
However, I really don't see how this would ever have any real world use, other than to make someone immediately fearful of some random bloke walking in the woods, who may actually need your help, not a bullet in Centre of Mass.
NOTE TO SELF:
Read previous poster's comments before posting: I have just essentially repeated what JohnKSa said in his last paragraph...
To invent a scenario that reads like a thriller is kind of loading the question towards one answer/reaction. Unless that is already the prefered reaction, in which case others' input is a bit obsolete.
On top of that, the thread title is "Unarmed assailant approaching". Hardly conducive to a reasoned evaluation.
For what its worth, the behaviour described sounds like acute disorientation. If in the woods that would be likely to be shock, some sort of trauma, or even hypothermia, given that crack cocaine addicts don't tend to go trekking.
If members like to review events that happened to them, or in the news to see if they or whoever had taken the best actions, fine: learning from someone else's experiences.
However, I really don't see how this would ever have any real world use, other than to make someone immediately fearful of some random bloke walking in the woods, who may actually need your help, not a bullet in Centre of Mass.
NOTE TO SELF:
Read previous poster's comments before posting: I have just essentially repeated what JohnKSa said in his last paragraph...
Last edited:
John- thank you for your excellent post and getting things back on track.
I take exception to the fact of someone saying repeatedly, and wrongly, that drawing your weapon is a felony, period, in situations when someone is attacking you.
If it were, none of us would ever be carrying.
I take exception to the fact of someone saying repeatedly, and wrongly, that drawing your weapon is a felony, period, in situations when someone is attacking you.
If it were, none of us would ever be carrying.
Move out of the way so that if the person is intending to attack you it will be obvious. Not sure how these scenarios come about. Having fished, hunted and hiked in such places I have never encountered such.
A fishing rod with a lure with hooks on it would help to keep another person from getting too close.
Jerry
A fishing rod with a lure with hooks on it would help to keep another person from getting too close.
Jerry
AH.74, what you fail to grasp is that the scenario doesn't establish that you are actually being attacked.
So, while it is legal in many jurisdictions to draw in order to thwart an attack, even in Texas it is not legal to draw if that attack is not imminent.
Other than the thread title, which includes the word "assailant," what other cues can you identify that would convince a jury that a reasonable person would believe an attack were imminent?
Some strange person is approaching.
Great, could be an attacker. Could be some guy who's been lost in the woods for days, suffering dehydration, and not fully lucid, who is approaching the only person he's seen, looking for help.
Going back to my earlier points, watch for his body language cues; present self-confident body language of your own; position yourself for possible evasion/weapon retention; be ready.
And, as I often add, some training in hand-to-hand would help buy time if somebody actually tries something. It also helps in the body language presentation.
So, while it is legal in many jurisdictions to draw in order to thwart an attack, even in Texas it is not legal to draw if that attack is not imminent.
Other than the thread title, which includes the word "assailant," what other cues can you identify that would convince a jury that a reasonable person would believe an attack were imminent?
Some strange person is approaching.
Great, could be an attacker. Could be some guy who's been lost in the woods for days, suffering dehydration, and not fully lucid, who is approaching the only person he's seen, looking for help.
Going back to my earlier points, watch for his body language cues; present self-confident body language of your own; position yourself for possible evasion/weapon retention; be ready.
And, as I often add, some training in hand-to-hand would help buy time if somebody actually tries something. It also helps in the body language presentation.
MLeake- I grasp it just fine, thank you.
In this OP, a person has been warned to stop and has not. The gun has been drawn and the person still fails to stop.
I will not make assumptions and bring other details into the situation. "What if's" do not apply because that would make the situation a guess. I will work with what I am provided in the OP, not bring in my own variables to suit my argument.
With the above details, and those details alone, what would you think?
In this OP, a person has been warned to stop and has not. The gun has been drawn and the person still fails to stop.
I will not make assumptions and bring other details into the situation. "What if's" do not apply because that would make the situation a guess. I will work with what I am provided in the OP, not bring in my own variables to suit my argument.
With the above details, and those details alone, what would you think?
The person has been warned, I get that.
What I don't get is the inherent threat that justifies a warning. A warning without justification is just a bunch of hot air.
You can warn me to stay away from you on public land; I'll probably choose to do so, since I don't need the hassle. I'll probably think you are a bit off, honestly.
Then again, I have no requirement to comply with your desire for me to stay away. Sad though it may be, I can go where I like on public land. So can the OP's hypothetical stranger. Maybe the woman in the OP's hypothetical is by the stranger's long-time favorite fishing spot.
And, if somebody warned me off public land, I'd probably call the police about it.
Note: Last time I was approached by a stranger, in a similar scenario (although I am a 6', 200lb martial artist, and I was with friends, so that changes things a bit), it turned out our GPS was off - or our interpretation of its chart was - and we were 100 yards into somebody's private property. The stranger who approached was the land owner. Luckily, he was friendly about it. We ended up giving him a lift back to his lodge in my friend's airboat.
Now, the OP is making this scenario about a lone female, who encounters a male who is acting strangely. That ups the ante a bit. My first bit of advice would be, if you are a lone female who is not comfortable with the idea of encountering strangers in the woods - don't go into the woods (or to the lake) by yourself. The buddy system would make the OP's encounter significantly less nerve-wracking.
And AH.74, you ARE making assumptions, based on the OP's details, and his details alone. You are assuming that behavior you don't understand automatically construes a threat.
What I don't get is the inherent threat that justifies a warning. A warning without justification is just a bunch of hot air.
You can warn me to stay away from you on public land; I'll probably choose to do so, since I don't need the hassle. I'll probably think you are a bit off, honestly.
Then again, I have no requirement to comply with your desire for me to stay away. Sad though it may be, I can go where I like on public land. So can the OP's hypothetical stranger. Maybe the woman in the OP's hypothetical is by the stranger's long-time favorite fishing spot.
And, if somebody warned me off public land, I'd probably call the police about it.
Note: Last time I was approached by a stranger, in a similar scenario (although I am a 6', 200lb martial artist, and I was with friends, so that changes things a bit), it turned out our GPS was off - or our interpretation of its chart was - and we were 100 yards into somebody's private property. The stranger who approached was the land owner. Luckily, he was friendly about it. We ended up giving him a lift back to his lodge in my friend's airboat.
Now, the OP is making this scenario about a lone female, who encounters a male who is acting strangely. That ups the ante a bit. My first bit of advice would be, if you are a lone female who is not comfortable with the idea of encountering strangers in the woods - don't go into the woods (or to the lake) by yourself. The buddy system would make the OP's encounter significantly less nerve-wracking.
And AH.74, you ARE making assumptions, based on the OP's details, and his details alone. You are assuming that behavior you don't understand automatically construes a threat.
Evan Thomas
Inactive
Mleake said:
MLeake, do you not see the contradiction here? You're proclaiming your right to go where you like on public land, but you're telling me that I'm wrong to do so -- at least if I'm by myself.
Yes, I am wary of male strangers, whether I'm in town or in the country. The reality is that in principle, any full-grown man is -- potentially -- an "inherent threat" to a woman, for the reasons I gave in my post above. For me, and for many other women, going armed is a huge equalizer: it means that we can exercise our right to "go where we like on public land," and elsewhere, in the knowledge that we can protect ourselves if necessary, without being dependent on someone else to "take care" of us. (Trust me... that dependence is a demeaning thing for an autonomous adult.)
But -- and this should be obvious to everyone here -- a couple of things go along with choosing to go armed, no matter who one is: exercising one's judgment about who is and isn't likely to be a genuine threat, and being willing to act on that judgment. And most men are not in fact threats.
A couple of examples: I'm a birder, in a not very serious way, and sometimes, after work, I like to go off on my own to local birding spots around the city, some of which are fairly isolated.
So I was out walking one evening in a birding "hotspot," and saw a guy sort of meandering down the trail toward me, and he had a camera and a big pair of binoculars slung around his neck. OK, that's pretty much a zero threat, as far as I'm concerned -- we passed on the trail, exchanged a few words, went on our different ways.
Another day, in a different place, I pulled into the parking area and saw two young guys on the viewing deck at the end of the trail from the lot. No binos... they were just sort of hanging out. So I said to myself, "Self... let's wait in the car and give them five minutes, and if they leave, great, if not, maybe we'll go somewhere else -- no point courting trouble here." A couple of minutes later they came back up the trail to the lot, and I got the dog out of the back and went on with my walk.
I will be darned if I'm going to deny myself the pleasure of outings like that, just because I might meet someone who sets off alarms.
In the OP's scenario, the approaching stranger has already failed to respond when told to stop -- if he's well-intentioned, perhaps on his way to a favorite fishing spot, why wouldn't he respond? At that point, my internal threat index goes way up: either his intentions aren't friendly or there's something else the matter with him. I'm not about to respond with lethal force at that point, but protecting myself will be a priority.
Last edited:
Vanya, I didn't say you can't go where you want. I said, if you are likely to be uncomfortable around strangers, then it might be a good idea to take a buddy with you. There's no contradiction, whatsoever, as I'm not talking about your right to go alone, just the possible wisdom of going with company.
Once again, on what grounds do you tell the guy to stop approaching? On what grounds, other than courtesy, should he comply? You are talking about a public spot, albeit a deserted one.
Now, would I close on a woman I don't know, in that manner? No.
Would I find it odd that a man would act that way? Yes.
But the person could be drunk (which could lead to other threatening behaviors, granted); mentally not right (ditto); disoriented due to a medical condition (ever see a diabetic have an insulin reaction or go into hypoglycemia?); deaf/mute (I have a deaf/mute cousin, but she's female; if she needed help she'd approach and would not hear your warning); etc.
So, again, be ready to deal with a problem but drawing may still be inappropriate.
Edit: The suggestion to move, and see if he tracks you, is not a bad one. Also, in case of a deaf person, or for that matter a foreign, non-English speaker, putting your hand out in a "STOP" motion might also get some attention, where words have failed.
Murphy can really suck; while odds of a guy being a potential attacker are higher, it would suck to shoot a lost Chinese guy with Down's Syndrome who'd wandered off from his tour group...
Once again, on what grounds do you tell the guy to stop approaching? On what grounds, other than courtesy, should he comply? You are talking about a public spot, albeit a deserted one.
Now, would I close on a woman I don't know, in that manner? No.
Would I find it odd that a man would act that way? Yes.
But the person could be drunk (which could lead to other threatening behaviors, granted); mentally not right (ditto); disoriented due to a medical condition (ever see a diabetic have an insulin reaction or go into hypoglycemia?); deaf/mute (I have a deaf/mute cousin, but she's female; if she needed help she'd approach and would not hear your warning); etc.
So, again, be ready to deal with a problem but drawing may still be inappropriate.
Edit: The suggestion to move, and see if he tracks you, is not a bad one. Also, in case of a deaf person, or for that matter a foreign, non-English speaker, putting your hand out in a "STOP" motion might also get some attention, where words have failed.
Murphy can really suck; while odds of a guy being a potential attacker are higher, it would suck to shoot a lost Chinese guy with Down's Syndrome who'd wandered off from his tour group...
Last edited:
Evan Thomas
Inactive
Sorry, but I do think there is a contradiction here. You're not telling me not to go -- but you are telling me how it is and isn't OK for me to go. I have every right to go where I want, as I want, on public land, just as you do. If I'm (with reason) a bit wary of strangers, and being armed lets me be comfortable alone, given that level of wariness, why should my going alone be a problem?
Put this in another context, which comes up here very regularly: you're pumping gas, and a man approaches you. In threads where this is the scenario, I can't recall anyone ever disagreeing with the idea that it's OK to issue some sort of verbal challenge as a first response. This might start with "What do you want? Can I help you?" -- But if the man keeps coming, telling him "Stop there! Don't come closer!" -- yes, with a hand gesture (see my first post on this) -- ought to be the immediate next step, along with moving away, putting the car between you, etc. And at some point in this sequence, it's reasonable to produce a weapon. Less so if you're a 200# martial arts master, more so if you're a 110# woman, martial arts master or not.
One can bring up all the same hypotheticals about deaf people, non-English-speakers, people having medical crises, etc. in the context of pumping gas. So what is so different about a situation in which someone is fishing in an isolated area? Why is it OK to give a verbal challenge in one situation, but not in the other? And why is it OK to be prepared to react to a threat with force if you're in a gas station, but it's not OK in the woods?
Yes -- in both (public!) places, the approaching person should comply, both out of courtesy and out of some sense of self-preservation... If I tell someone approaching me to stop, I will be doing it in a way that makes it clear that not stopping may have consequences. I will also be moving away if I can -- but if I'm wearing waders and up to my thighs in a lake, I'm going to be a bit limited that way.
And note, please, that I was quite clear in my first post that I'd be drawing the pepper spray first, and that the gun, if any, would be a backup if the pepper spray was ineffective... I'm not among those who'd draw a gun as a first response in this situation.
MLeake said:
Put this in another context, which comes up here very regularly: you're pumping gas, and a man approaches you. In threads where this is the scenario, I can't recall anyone ever disagreeing with the idea that it's OK to issue some sort of verbal challenge as a first response. This might start with "What do you want? Can I help you?" -- But if the man keeps coming, telling him "Stop there! Don't come closer!" -- yes, with a hand gesture (see my first post on this) -- ought to be the immediate next step, along with moving away, putting the car between you, etc. And at some point in this sequence, it's reasonable to produce a weapon. Less so if you're a 200# martial arts master, more so if you're a 110# woman, martial arts master or not.
One can bring up all the same hypotheticals about deaf people, non-English-speakers, people having medical crises, etc. in the context of pumping gas. So what is so different about a situation in which someone is fishing in an isolated area? Why is it OK to give a verbal challenge in one situation, but not in the other? And why is it OK to be prepared to react to a threat with force if you're in a gas station, but it's not OK in the woods?
Yes -- in both (public!) places, the approaching person should comply, both out of courtesy and out of some sense of self-preservation... If I tell someone approaching me to stop, I will be doing it in a way that makes it clear that not stopping may have consequences. I will also be moving away if I can -- but if I'm wearing waders and up to my thighs in a lake, I'm going to be a bit limited that way.
And note, please, that I was quite clear in my first post that I'd be drawing the pepper spray first, and that the gun, if any, would be a backup if the pepper spray was ineffective... I'm not among those who'd draw a gun as a first response in this situation.
Last edited:
ojibweindian
New member
I'd ask him how the fish were biting. Seriously.
Vanya, one could bring up all those hypotheticals about pumping gas.
And please show me when I've ever said it would be a good idea to draw on somebody in one of those scenarios.
I think I've pretty consistently said, use body language, use maneuver, and be ready to escalate if necessary. I've also quite frequently advocated training in one of the martial arts which focuses on escapes and evasion, and allows time to draw a weapon if things catch one off guard.
So, no, I'm not being inconsistent.
And I'm not telling you what's OK or not OK. If you notice what I said, it wasn't that "women should always have escorts." It was more on the lines of "women who feel uncomfortable when encountering strangers should consider bringing buddies along." The same could be said for men. If situations make one fearful, when alone, one probably should avoid going into those situations alone.
So my comments weren't based on gender, per se, but on attitudes and comfort levels. In this instance, the subject for the OP was a female, so I used "women." If his subject had been a small man, an infirm person, whatever, my basic take on it would have remained the same.
And please show me when I've ever said it would be a good idea to draw on somebody in one of those scenarios.
I think I've pretty consistently said, use body language, use maneuver, and be ready to escalate if necessary. I've also quite frequently advocated training in one of the martial arts which focuses on escapes and evasion, and allows time to draw a weapon if things catch one off guard.
So, no, I'm not being inconsistent.
And I'm not telling you what's OK or not OK. If you notice what I said, it wasn't that "women should always have escorts." It was more on the lines of "women who feel uncomfortable when encountering strangers should consider bringing buddies along." The same could be said for men. If situations make one fearful, when alone, one probably should avoid going into those situations alone.
So my comments weren't based on gender, per se, but on attitudes and comfort levels. In this instance, the subject for the OP was a female, so I used "women." If his subject had been a small man, an infirm person, whatever, my basic take on it would have remained the same.
Evan Thomas
Inactive
MLeake, I don't think you and I are very far apart in terms of how one should act in the scenario posed in the OP. Neither of us thinks that the situation, as described, warrants drawing a gun.
As I said in my first post in this thread, my response would likely be to ask him what he wants; if there's no response, retreat and tell him to stop, with both words and gestures; and if he still comes closer without giving any indication of what he wants, draw pepper spray and use it if necessary to stop him.
Perhaps it needs to be spelled out, obvious as it seems, that I'd also be evaluating the man's appearance and body language for signs of his physical and mental status: Is he dishevelled, stumbling, sweating, looking disoriented?
Is he, fergawdsake, carrying fishing gear? If he is, I'm probably not going to be too worried.
That was the point of the examples I gave in my next post: when I encounter someone I don't know, whether in the backcountry, on a city street, or in the sort of "in-between" area I was describing, it's automatic for me to look at all sorts of cues in deciding whether someone is a potential, and I stress potential, threat.
In the situation as given, I'm not going to let him get within reach until I have some notion of what's going on with him.
I don't meet the world with the assumption that I need to fear everyone I meet -- rather the opposite, in fact. That doesn't change the fact that as a middle-aged woman, I'm aware that pretty well any able-bodied man is strong enough to overpower me physically; he doesn't have to be armed to be a threat.
That's just how it is, and it is a reason for me to be, not fearful, but careful. I pay attention to whatever cues a stranger is giving me, especially if I'm alone, and I carry whatever means of protection makes me comfortable. I'd add that I actually like being alone, and feel even safer in the backcountry than I do around the city -- the odds are that anyone I meet in the mountains, or on the river, is there for pretty much the same purposes I am.
A "buddy system" would be a severely unattractive alternative. Can't see why I'd want to curtail my freedom that way...
As I said in my first post in this thread, my response would likely be to ask him what he wants; if there's no response, retreat and tell him to stop, with both words and gestures; and if he still comes closer without giving any indication of what he wants, draw pepper spray and use it if necessary to stop him.
Perhaps it needs to be spelled out, obvious as it seems, that I'd also be evaluating the man's appearance and body language for signs of his physical and mental status: Is he dishevelled, stumbling, sweating, looking disoriented?
Is he, fergawdsake, carrying fishing gear? If he is, I'm probably not going to be too worried.
That was the point of the examples I gave in my next post: when I encounter someone I don't know, whether in the backcountry, on a city street, or in the sort of "in-between" area I was describing, it's automatic for me to look at all sorts of cues in deciding whether someone is a potential, and I stress potential, threat.
In the situation as given, I'm not going to let him get within reach until I have some notion of what's going on with him.
I don't meet the world with the assumption that I need to fear everyone I meet -- rather the opposite, in fact. That doesn't change the fact that as a middle-aged woman, I'm aware that pretty well any able-bodied man is strong enough to overpower me physically; he doesn't have to be armed to be a threat.
That's just how it is, and it is a reason for me to be, not fearful, but careful. I pay attention to whatever cues a stranger is giving me, especially if I'm alone, and I carry whatever means of protection makes me comfortable. I'd add that I actually like being alone, and feel even safer in the backcountry than I do around the city -- the odds are that anyone I meet in the mountains, or on the river, is there for pretty much the same purposes I am.
A "buddy system" would be a severely unattractive alternative. Can't see why I'd want to curtail my freedom that way...
If he is not carrying a weapon and or threatening... you guys would just shoot him? why not just whip him w/the fly rod? I can't see killing a man, or even drawing a weapon because a person walks up to you. What if he was a local Mental health case, intoxicated or a just a well intentioned person who wants to "spread the good word"? The guy could have been lost or injured. If there is no visible or verbal threat, why draw the gun to begin with?
In this scenario....................
the threat ignores warnings to stop approaching you. Why? IMO this indicates danger and thus must be met with a preparatory action. More commands and separation maintaining movement are essential. If this doesn't work then a draw (without pointing) and more commands while maintaining separation. When you can no longer retreat safely or the threat has over taken your minimum safe distance then you should defend yourself at that point.
Unless you are confident that you can defeat this threat with hand to hand should he begin an attack then you simply cannot allow him to get close while open carrying.
At this point Ability, Opportunity, and Intent are covered. Ability because you have decided that you cannot take them hand to hand. Opportunity because he is close enough to use his death or great bodily injury producing weapons (hands and feet). Intent because you repeatedly demanded he stop and retreated and drew your firearm and he still kept coming.
I believe that I would be able to articulate to a jury that I was in fear of death or grave bodily injury from a stranger who refused commands at gunpoint to leave me alone even though they were unarmed and not vocally announcing intent.
the threat ignores warnings to stop approaching you. Why? IMO this indicates danger and thus must be met with a preparatory action. More commands and separation maintaining movement are essential. If this doesn't work then a draw (without pointing) and more commands while maintaining separation. When you can no longer retreat safely or the threat has over taken your minimum safe distance then you should defend yourself at that point.
Unless you are confident that you can defeat this threat with hand to hand should he begin an attack then you simply cannot allow him to get close while open carrying.
At this point Ability, Opportunity, and Intent are covered. Ability because you have decided that you cannot take them hand to hand. Opportunity because he is close enough to use his death or great bodily injury producing weapons (hands and feet). Intent because you repeatedly demanded he stop and retreated and drew your firearm and he still kept coming.
I believe that I would be able to articulate to a jury that I was in fear of death or grave bodily injury from a stranger who refused commands at gunpoint to leave me alone even though they were unarmed and not vocally announcing intent.