Scenario: Unarmed assailant advancing

[threegun]

I can't see killing a man, or even drawing a weapon because a person walks up to you.

Nobody suggested that. This person ignored a command to stop. Now you may be capable of knowing a mans intent simply by looking at them, most of us cannot. If you allow a man to get close enough to hit you, without attempting to ascertain his intent before he gets there and his intent is bad you are finished.

This isn't a city sidewalk where people have a reason to walk past you. This is the middle of nowhere. Someone purposely looking to make contact with you. You are alone. You are openly armed. Your only weakness at this point is allowing an unknown to get close enough to use his only visible weapons, his hands and feet. Not challenging them even politely is a huge mistake. Allowing them within arms reach is worst yet.

You trust and we verify. Two different philosophy's. Our way is undeniably safer.

 

[AH.74]

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...

For pete's sake, please stop posing ridiculous hypotheticals which make no sense to try to support your argument.

This isn't a city sidewalk where people have a reason to walk past you. This is the middle of nowhere. Someone purposely looking to make contact with you. You are alone. You are openly armed. Your only weakness at this point is allowing an unknown to get close enough to use his only visible weapons, his hands and feet. Not challenging them even politely is a huge mistake. Allowing them within arms reach is worst yet.

And (still to MLeake), your argument of trying to twist these facts into "warning someone off public lands" is not valid. Again, it makes no sense.

 

[zincwarrior]

Quote:
Scenario : You are fishing off the shore at an isolated lake in the mountains, in the distance you see a man approaching you. You are openly carrying. He has no apparent weapons, and is walking rapidly, but not in a necessarily threatening manner. As he gets close to you, you turn to face him, and he continues approaching, closing in closer than 7 yards. You tell him to stop, he continues approaching, as if he did not hear you. You draw your weapon and point it at him while yelling at him to stop. He continues approaching.

You hesitate because you don't want to go to jail for murder and THATS when the zombie lurches forward and you are lunch!

I hate it when I'm fishing and the Xombies try to eat my brains. Dang zombies! At least now I have an excuse for not catching anything.

 

[MLeake]

AH.74, the odds of encountering disoriented people in the woods are actually about as high as those of encountering an assailant in the woods.

People get lost and dehydrated, or suffer medical emergencies exponentially more often than people get attacked in the great outdoors.

That's not to say that people don't get attacked; they do. I can think of seven or eight murders in the last five years.

But look how many search and rescue efforts have happened in that same timeframe.

Franky, your hypotheticals are the ridiculous ones.

 

[zincwarrior]

Quote:
You're alone, except you're by a lake. Likely there are other fishermen there or coming there. But under this mantra the fisherman who sets down next to you is going to get shot. Really? Unless he owns the land he has no presumption some stranger is not going to plump right down next to him.

Presumption of guilt. Really?

Keep on changing the details to suit you, fine. I won't engage in those types of games with someone who can't keep things on the same level.

Before you get persnicketty you might look up how the law actually works. In more jurisdictions (granted there may be some this is the case) Self Defense is an affirmative defense. You've already admitted to the act and now you're trying to justify the act you did under a legally valid scheme. The presumption at that point is absolutely against you.

 

[MLeake]

And still (to AH.74) you are assuming that drawing in the first place was justified. Have fun with that one, unless you can establish that you took very positive steps to avoid having to do so.

(IE, not just saying, "Stay back, foul creature of the night!" but also trying to retreat, move off-line, use non-verbal commands, etc.)

Drawing when there is a threat is not brandishing; drawing when there has not been a credible threat is brandishing, and possibly assault.

I'm not saying the situation might not justify a draw, but the OP (and several others) are suggesting drawing without really justifying the draw; they (and you, AH.74) are then using the fact of that bogus draw, and that the guy is closing even though the gun is now drawn, to support the validity of a shooting.

Circular logic, at best.

 

[threegun]

In the middle of nowhere and a stranger makes a b line for your position and without a kind word continues to close and you ask them to stop and they ignore you without a kind word...........ALL THIS AND YOU ARE OPENLY ARMED, I mean what are you guys concerned with. If this isn't a threat then why not speak? Why ignore commands to stop in the face of a firearm?

Not speaking causes me to fear the unknown intent of a man unwilling to engage in talk. Ignoring my initial commands to stop make me fear that the mans intent is bad. Ignoring any commands to stop while retreating and after the draw confirm bad intent for me.

My answers to these questions are why I retreat, draw, point, then fire with commands to stop or else between steps.

 

[ripnbst]

Please explain to me how running is a huge gamble?

"Your honor I shot him because he was maniacally walking is a guaranteed LOL in my book"

You still have fists you know. If he comes within 7 and doesn't heed verbal warning punch them right in their pie hole. If he doesn't go down or really starts a struggle well I hope you are carrying condition 1.

If they are a normal human being they will call the authorities after being punched and then you can sort it all out. I actually think you would have a pretty strong case for punching them. You are out in the wilderness with several hundred feet of space the person could have walked around you yet chose to walk past you within inches and didn't stop when you asked them to.

If I were on a jury I would prob side with the puncher, not the punchee.

 

[threegun]

Please explain to me how running is a huge gamble?

"Your honor I shot him because he was maniacally walking is a guaranteed LOL in my book"

Assuming you are asking this question of me running is a gamble because if you fall and injure yourself you will be less likely to be able to defend yourself. If the bad guy is faster than you obviously if you are running they will have your back at contact.

To correct your statement to the judge it should be your Honor I shot him because I was in fear for my life after he ignored several verbal attempts I made to stop him and he chased after me knowing I was armed. When I could no longer maintain the distance I was forced to shoot fearing he would harm me. I did all possible to avoid it including retreat.

To me no sane "innocent" man would ignore multiple warnings to stop and even advance on someone wielding deadly force unless the intent was to inflict deadly force IMO.

 

[zincwarrior]

This is what makes it humorous. You're going to punch someone for getting within 7 yards of you on public land at a lake, a public lake?

Under what color of authority do you have to shoot them, draw on them, punch them in the kisser, or even shout some sort of warning at them? The more this hypotehtical is discussed, the more cooky its starting to sound.

 

[Pond James Pond]

The more this hypotehtical is discussed, the more cooky its starting to sound.

+ 1 to that.

 

[SurplusShooter]

I would carry a less lethal option like mace and use that first then if the attack continuos lethal is an appropriate option.

 

[Evan Thomas]

It's not "kooky" (I think that's what you meant ), it's just... difficult.

The scenario in the OP is that someone continues to approach you after being told repeatedly to stop. He doesn't appear to be armed, but he keeps walking rapidly toward you without responding to your words or to your gestures.

You don't need any "color of authority" to call out: "Hi, can I help you? What do you want?" But if someone doesn't answer such a hail and keeps coming even when you then ask him to stop, how do you know that he's NOT a threat?

He hasn't shown a weapon, but you don't know that he's unarmed.

The rapid, purposeful walking suggests that he's able-bodied and neither blind nor disoriented. Yes, he could be deaf, but what deaf person doesn't understand that a hand raised palm-out means "Stop!"

His failure to respond to your words and gestures isn't normal behavior, and that ought to set your alarm bells off. It's true that you don't know whether he intends to attack you or if he's mentally disabled or disturbed, on drugs, or just a complete social misfit who has never learned that when someone asks what you want, it's polite to answer.

Some, such as MLeake and ripnbst, are apparently confident enough of their hand-to-hand skills to let him get close. Others of us don't think that's a good idea -- hands and feet can injure or kill, and it's possible that he is carrying some sort of weapon.

I do think it's very improbable that someone would approach in this way without showing some signs of what was going on...

But, that said, I think the best one can say about a scenario like this is that it makes a good argument for having some form of defense short of lethal force. Using pepper spray before drawing a gun makes sense to me in such a situation.

 

[Pond James Pond]

It's not "kooky" (I think that's what you meant ), it's just... difficult.

The scenario in the OP is that someone continues to approach you after being told repeatedly to stop. He doesn't appear to be armed, but he keeps walking rapidly toward you without responding to your words or to your gestures.

My personal concern with this entire thread, as I outlined earlier, is that almost everyone is looking at this "individual" as an aggressor, largely because the OP phrased it in such a manner.

This is supposed to be an evaluation of a scenario. Already a hypothetical scenario of this specificity is somewhat pointless as it would have a zillion other factors that can't be imagined.
Consequently, all those blanks are filled in by members who are on a gun forum.... So naturally this "neutral" situation is already biased toward an issue of attack and defence.

Nothing in the OP talks about an attack, though. Except the title, that is. There is the word assailant is in bold letters. So again, the perspective is biased yet more.. That is "kooky".

Others have mooted that this individual could simply be in distress. If I had to fill in some of the blanks of this situation, given the environment, that would seem the more likely explanation.

Yet so many are chomping at the bit to pull a gun.

For me that too is "kooky".

My 2p

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by cracked91: Glenn, I am confident in my own abilities to judge and react to situations.

So--what was it that led you to conclude that you would be able to convincingly articulate to police officers or if necessary, to others why a reasonable person, knowing what you knew at the time, would conclude that you had been justified in drawing your firearm simply because the person did not stop approaching you?

You can help us by expanding upon the following:

1. In what state did the incident occur?
2. Was the man walking around the lake, along the shore, or toward the lake?
3. If he appeared to be walking toward the lake, are you reasonably confident that his path toward you was not on a path that would have been reaonable for a person to take from his point of arrival to somewhere else to which he had a legal right to go?

Perhaps than we will be able to come up with an answer to this from zincwarrior:

Under what color of authority do you have to shoot them, draw on them, punch them in the kisser, or even shout some sort of warning at them?

 

[threegun]

Some, such as MLeake and ripnbst, are apparently confident enough of their hand-to-hand skills to let him get close. Others of us don't think that's a good idea -- hands and feet can injure or kill, and it's possible that he is carrying some sort of weapon.

Perfect.

 

[threegun]

My personal concern with this entire thread, as I outlined earlier, is that almost everyone is looking at this "individual" as an aggressor, largely because the OP phrased it in such a manner.

This is supposed to be an evaluation of a scenario. Already a hypothetical scenario of this specificity is somewhat pointless as it would have a zillion other factors that can't be imagined.
Consequently, all those blanks are filled in by members who are on a gun forum.... So naturally this "neutral" situation is already biased toward an issue of attack and defence.

Nothing in the OP talks about an attack, though. Except the title, that is. There is the word assailant is in bold letters. So again, the perspective is biased yet more.. That is "kooky".

Others have mooted that this individual could simply be in distress. If I had to fill in some of the blanks of this situation, given the environment, that would seem the more likely explanation.

Yet so many are chomping at the bit to pull a gun.

All we can do is take the words of the OP. If this scenario happened to you how would you handle it? I for one would love to know why someone would allow a stranger, in the middle of nowhere, who refuses to talk or otherwise state his intentions, to close to within striking distance, while armed. This to me is tactical stupidity.

If we were chomping at the bit as you put it to pull a gun why give multiple warnings or retreat? Such assumptions are not very nice.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Vanya: But if someone doesn't answer such a hail and keeps coming even when you then ask him to stop, how do you know that he's NOT a threat?

He hasn't shown a weapon, but you don't know that he's unarmed.

You do not, and correct, you don't.

That's a long, long way from having an articulable reason to believe that an imminent threat existed and that the use of force (TX and MN) or deadly force (anywhere else) to defend against that threat was justified.

Yes, I know that drawing a firearm does not constitute the use of deadly force in most jurisdictions; it's just that a civilian may not do so except when faced with an immediate threat that would justify the use of deadly force (or force, in the two states mentioned).

Without a schematic, we cannot opine from here whether the approach was suspicious or simply coincidental. People come within arms reach of others all the time, and one cannot issue a lawful, enforceable command to not do so without cause.

What we can say is that if the man's behavior was lawful and proper, drawing the firearm could actually give either the approaching man, or his unseen companion or both, reason to believe that he was faced with imminent danger of death or serious injury, justifying the use of deadly force against the OP.

 

[threegun]

So--what was it that led you to conclude that you would be able to convincingly articulate to police officers or if necessary, to others why a reasonable person, knowing what you knew at the time, would conclude that you had been justified in drawing your firearm simply because the person did not stop approaching you?

Read Vanya's post and thats what.

(1) Would you let a Lion, Tiger, or Bear close on you without a challenge? Why on Earth would you allow the most dangerous animal on Earth to close to within striking distance? Especially one exhibiting abnormal behavior.

(2) Do you consider ignoring commands to stop, alarming in the slightest?

(3) Do you suspect someone is willing to kill you if they are willing to continue advancing in the face of deadly force?

(4) Does the scenario posed by the OP raise any red flags at all in the strangers behavior?

 

[OldMarksman]

(1) Would you let a Lion, Tiger, or Bear close on you without a challenge?

Challenge? What good would a challenge do?

Why on Earth would you allow the most dangerous animal on Earth to close to within striking distance? Especially one exhibiting abnormal behavior.

(2) Do you consider ignoring commands to stop, alarming in the slightest?

See Post #78 about lawful, enforceable commands.

(3) Do you suspect someone is willing to kill you if they are willing to continue advancing in the face of deadly force?

See Post #78 about reasonable belief. Suspicion is not enough.

(4) Does the scenario posed by the OP raise any red flags at all in the strangers behavior?

Sure would take me out of Condition Yellow!