You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Scenario: Unarmed assailant advancing
- Thread starter cracked91
- Start date
Oldmarksman, I think its safe to say that in the scenario posted by the OP that you would do nothing until the potential threat evolves into a viable threat. One that would allow you to justify your actions in court without a doubt.
I on the other hand believe that in the scenario posted, a case can be made on my part, that the strangers actions or in this case his inaction (to stop and or speak) made him go from an unknown stranger to a threat. The only way to reasonably deal with this threat is to retreat and prepare to stop it. Unless you are willing or able to go hand to hand.
I on the other hand believe that in the scenario posted, a case can be made on my part, that the strangers actions or in this case his inaction (to stop and or speak) made him go from an unknown stranger to a threat. The only way to reasonably deal with this threat is to retreat and prepare to stop it. Unless you are willing or able to go hand to hand.
threegun, retreat and/or get out of the way should be revised to "move out of the way."
Retreating, if you are on the path the guy is following, keeps you in his way even if he's proceeding legitimately.
Correct, thanks.
threegun, you appear to deliberately be ignoring the fact that there are a bunch of other options in between verbal challenge and draw; this is not just limited to straight-line (and potentially still along the guy's chosen path) retreat.
You keep wanting to turn this into a "young, healthy guys may choose to go hand-to-hand thing," but that's a straw-man argument. Nobody is advocating that, not even those of us who could viably choose that approach in many cases.
I like having the option, but I generally try to avoid needing to employ it.
And, I can assure you, if somebody were to pull a weapon on me, while I'm carrying, the only way that would go hand-to-hand would be if we were too close for me to feel like I could draw. Otherwise, if I'm armed, I'm shooting when that weapon comes out. In very tight quarters, jamming his draw may be the better choice.
Again, that goes to options.
But once more, I am NOT saying "engage the guy in hand-to-hand." I am saying, use every tool at your disposal to avoid the confrontation, and if necessary to positively identify him as a threat.
And I still think there are way too many gun-happy folks in here.
You keep wanting to turn this into a "young, healthy guys may choose to go hand-to-hand thing," but that's a straw-man argument. Nobody is advocating that, not even those of us who could viably choose that approach in many cases.
I like having the option, but I generally try to avoid needing to employ it.
And, I can assure you, if somebody were to pull a weapon on me, while I'm carrying, the only way that would go hand-to-hand would be if we were too close for me to feel like I could draw. Otherwise, if I'm armed, I'm shooting when that weapon comes out. In very tight quarters, jamming his draw may be the better choice.
Again, that goes to options.
But once more, I am NOT saying "engage the guy in hand-to-hand." I am saying, use every tool at your disposal to avoid the confrontation, and if necessary to positively identify him as a threat.
And I still think there are way too many gun-happy folks in here.
Vanya and threegun, if what you two think I'm saying is, "I can handle him unarmed so I'll just let him close," then you two are missing my point entirely.
My point about hand-to-hand skills is that, in certain circumstances they are usable when your gun legally is not; and, in certain circumstances where your gun would be legally viable, those skills may be the edge that helps you bring the weapon into play.
I am not remotely saying, "Intentionally let a real threat close to bad-breath distance."
What I have said in this scenario is basically this - the burden is on you to prove that the guy is really a threat.
Understood about the H2H thing. My point is that once you have "moved out of the way" , if the threat continues to follow his intent is obvious. Others have indicated that this is not so.
OldMarksman
Staff
That might work--if you are able to provide at least some evidence to support your belief, and if you are able to convince others that a reasonable person, knowing what you knew at the time, would have reasonably believed that (1) your life was threatened (the concept of A, O, J again) and (2) that you had no other alternative.Posted by skydiver3346: If he still comes at you, then do what you think is best, (for me personally, I would shoot). Remember, he could have a knife or gun hidden that you can't see. You did your best to avoid this and tell law enforement that you felt your life was threanted and you responded to said threat.
There is a distinct difference between how one may have felt and what consitutes a reasonable belief.
Yeah, if he keeps coming and you cannot get away, you may conclude have to shoot. Be aware that there are people serving long prison terms for concluding just that, not necessarily unreasonably, and not being able to prevail afterwards.
If the forensic evidence does show that you made every effort to evade him and if he does turn out to to have had a knife, you should have a reasonable basis for a successful defense of justification. If either element is missing, or if there is anything that could cast any doubt on your credibility, you would likely end up in a great deal of trouble.
On a separate note, although this may not please dedicated birders like Vanya, I was always taught not to go deep into the wilds by myself. As somebody already noted, a broken leg, hypothermia, etc will kill you very quickly if there's nobody to help you.
As a side bonus, if one encounters an odd stranger, one has a buddy along.
In the wilds closer to my house, I sometimes ignore my own advice, but then I have a GPS, cell phone, and one or two large dogs.
As a side bonus, if one encounters an odd stranger, one has a buddy along.
In the wilds closer to my house, I sometimes ignore my own advice, but then I have a GPS, cell phone, and one or two large dogs.
Yeah, if he keeps coming and you cannot get away, you may conclude have to shoot. Be aware that there are people serving long prison terms for concluding just that, not necessarily unreasonably, and not being able to prevail afterwards.
And even more in a hole because they waited.
threegun, we are getting closer to agreement.
Please note that even then, the guy may be approaching with a note that says, "I am deaf/mute, please help." He could be reaching for a notebook, not a weapon.
He could conceivably be a lost foreign type, reaching for a map, to ask where the heck he is?
(And yes, I've encountered those.)
What I'm saying is, there could be valid reasons for the person to try to pursue, and still not verbally respond. Exhaust all options before using a weapon.
Please note that even then, the guy may be approaching with a note that says, "I am deaf/mute, please help." He could be reaching for a notebook, not a weapon.
He could conceivably be a lost foreign type, reaching for a map, to ask where the heck he is?
(And yes, I've encountered those.)
What I'm saying is, there could be valid reasons for the person to try to pursue, and still not verbally respond. Exhaust all options before using a weapon.
OldMarksman
Staff
It would certainly seem so, and that is one of the several necessary elements of justification.Posted by threegun: ...once you have "moved out of the way" , if the threat continues to follow his intent is obvious.
zincwarrior
New member
Understood about the H2H thing. My point is that once you have "moved out of the way" , if the threat continues to follow his intent is obvious. Others have indicated that this is not so.
Not sure about that. But as you say, once you've moved out of the line and he's had to change direction, something is amiss and you can act more appropriately.
Not sure about that. But as you say, once you've moved out of the line and he's had to change direction, something is amiss and you can act more appropriately.
Thats what I'm saying as corrected earlier by MLeake. Moving out of the way usually means going in a different direction.
MLeake, For me the draw would come only after repeated unheeded warnings to stop the advance and a tactical retreat. After that and assuming that the stranger isn't the size of MiniMe its on.
And to those who assume many on this board are "itching" to draw simply because our flags go up faster than yours, you are wrong.
And to those who assume many on this board are "itching" to draw simply because our flags go up faster than yours, you are wrong.
threegun, you and Vanya have discussed evasive maneuver; less-than-lethal options; observed traits.
However, others have just opted to draw because of the stranger's behavior, as described by the OP, without any indication of intermediate steps nor descriptions of what their perceptual triggers would be.
To me, those folks are gun-happy, itching to draw, etc.
If you think about it, I think you and Vanya will agree.
However, others have just opted to draw because of the stranger's behavior, as described by the OP, without any indication of intermediate steps nor descriptions of what their perceptual triggers would be.
To me, those folks are gun-happy, itching to draw, etc.
If you think about it, I think you and Vanya will agree.
I definitely agree with Vanya and for the most part with you.
In the OP's scenario it is quite conceivable that one would be justified depending on the how things unfold in the woods. Are you on a common path? Did the stranger modify his direction to assure contact? How did he respond to your command and or draw?
In the OP's scenario it is quite conceivable that one would be justified depending on the how things unfold in the woods. Are you on a common path? Did the stranger modify his direction to assure contact? How did he respond to your command and or draw?
If you are not on a common path, are you on the only spot of water in the vicinity? That's another consideration.
Point is, there is simply not enough detail in the OP's hypothetical, and everybody is filling in the blanks to fit their own desired narrative.
Not unlike the mainstream media....
Point is, there is simply not enough detail in the OP's hypothetical, and everybody is filling in the blanks to fit their own desired narrative.
Not unlike the mainstream media....
Agreed.
Vanya did bring up a valuable point however. You enter someones camp with permission first. If I'm there first and we are in the middle of nowhere, you better make small talk before getting close. Most hunters/campers/hikers have had both approach styles used to enter either camp or their immediate space. One raises concern the other relaxes them.
Vanya did bring up a valuable point however. You enter someones camp with permission first. If I'm there first and we are in the middle of nowhere, you better make small talk before getting close. Most hunters/campers/hikers have had both approach styles used to enter either camp or their immediate space. One raises concern the other relaxes them.