Pond said:
...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".
Yeah... umm... well... it's a gun forum. In particular, it's a
tactics forum. Sure, the thread title could have been better phrased, but I think by now we all get that.
On a wilderness medicine forum, the thread title might be "Uncommunicative victim approaching," which is also biased.
On a fishing forum, it might be "Blundering fish-scaring fool approaching."
Et cetera.
If you find it "kooky" that members of a gun forum would discuss whether it's appropriate to use, or even draw, a gun in a given, hypothetical situation, and why or why not... I guess I'm not sure why you're here.
.....................
OldMarksman said:
Vanya said:
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.
Agreed. Which is why I'll retreat and continue to tell him to stop, and use pepper spray rather than a gun if he persists...
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.
There's plenty of room between "coincidental" and "suspicious" -- it's not a dichotomy. If "coincidental" means something like "happens to be walking along an established trail in the general direction of a woman who is fishing," then you're right: there's no justification -- at that moment -- for saying anything except "Hi, nice day, isn't it?"
But when someone steps off a trail and approaches, it's not coincidence any more. It remains to be seen whether it's suspicious; it may or may not be. At that point, "Can I help you?" is an utterly reasonable question to ask such a person.
I've spent a lot of time in the backcountry, and I have no hesitation at all in saying that in really remote places, people
do not generally "come within arm's reach of others" without making some kind of contact first. If you meet someone on a trail, it's polite to greet them as you're approaching. If you're coming off a trail to approach a campsite, it's polite to stop, hail the campers, and wait for them to respond before coming into the camp. If you're canoeing and you stop at someone's camp, the polite thing is to stay in your boat until they greet you.
I'd never suggest that if someone (rudely) doesn't do those things, it's a reason to pull a gun -- that would be absurd. But I'd absolutely pay some "extra attention" to anyone who failed to observe that kind of elementary backcountry etiquette.
And for sure, it's either rude or very odd not to reply to a simple inquiry like "Hi! Can I help you?" In this scenario, it's the failure of the approaching man to do any of those things that justifies caution: retreating or moving aside, telling him to stop, and so forth.
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.
Whoa... now you're positing an unseen companion -- who
also doesn't have the wit or courtesy to acknowledge a hail? I rest my case, I think.
OldMarksman said:
threegun said:
The fact that the stranger refuses to even attempt communication is even more alarming.
It would raise concern, but consider hearing impairment, an IPod, or certain completely not violent attention disorders.
Nah. We've already done the hearing-impairment-etc. thing. If someone who is neither blind nor obviously ill or disoriented doesn't respond to words or to gestures, something is wrong enough to justify defensive action of some sort.
Lethal force is an
absolute last resort in this or any other situation, but if someone continues to come at me for no apparent reason after I've given every indication, including moving away, that he should stop doing so... Sorry, but he's a threat, and I'll defend myself -- hoping pepper spray will suffice.