Scenario: Unarmed assailant advancing

old marksman - now that IS a very good point

Whether you shoot him in the leg intentionally or while you intended to shoot him in the chest, that would constitute deadly force; it is also likely to kill him. In any event, absent an articulable basis for, and evidence supporting, a reasonable belief that he had the ability and the opportunity to kill you or cause crippling injury and that you were in fact in jeopardy and that you had had no alternative, you would most certainly end up locked up for a very long time.
Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly. I was just saying I will be the one who decides what the best course of action is if this scenario happens to me: that is a fact. I will also have to face the aftermath, good or bad.

I myself would probably try and vacate the situation if the individual refused to respond to me. I believe that the universal sign language of having my firearm now in my hand could communicate to many more than the yelling. If the individual continued to come past my safe distance which thankfully might be further than others' safe distance, I probably would start moving as well. I will NOT just stand there if I feel threatened and just hope it is nothing bad and/or assume that it won't become an issue. I can't give up my security in this issue. I will not just shoot and ask questions later(not saying you said that // there seems to be some inference on this thread that there is no grey area and just two sides and that one side of the argument automatically fits into this category). That is not the case for me. I will not just shoot someone recklessly. Of course it is possible someone else will decide if that is indeed the case or not. Thank you for the links. They are always helpful, and I never shy away from the use of force literature.
 
just read the rest of the thread after the oldmarksman post(I paused to respond)

I still think if this scenario happened in real life, people would die because they chose to stand their ground without drawing (that's in the case if it was actually a BG). It is a shame if someone would allow themselves to get into that situation. It has always been a common rule like back in the old days when you could see someone approaching your ranch from a large distance: respect the danger but don't fear it or better to be prepared than sorry.

*In other words, they would make the potentially fatal mistake of not thinking quick enough to at least back away or to try and make proper communication in a situation that made them feel uneasy(I am talking about any person/not TFL members).
 
Those who have said that they would start out by "commanding" the man to stop and by drawing and pointing a firearm have some learning to do. That is a guaranteed path to serious trouble.

Those of us who have spoken of evasion are on the right track--but the problem remains a serous one.

Let us suppose that we have, probably unwisely, gone out by ourselves in the wilderness. I think it would be a serious mistake to assume, however, that if we are in a really good spot for fishing, we are necessarily alone with the mysterious hiker.

Consider, for example, the fishing lakes above Bear Lake in RMNP. As one goes higher and further up to Emerald, Dream, and Nymph Lake, or to Haiyaha, one may feel quite alone, but there may be someone in the shadows, or someone may arrive nearby unnoticed. That is not mere conjecture; that has been my experience. That provides the potential for a witness.

Having framed the situation, let's look together at the possibilities, after assuming that for some reason the man keeps following, and throwing out the idea of letting him get within slashing range:

  • We draw and he stops, and that's the end of it (good);
  • We draw and he stops, but we are reported (not good);
  • We believe that we are forced to fire and we do so, but the existence of his weapon sufficently supports our defense of justification (worse);
  • Same, but we do not prevail in our defense (still worse).

I've left out the possibility of our being shot by a third party who believes that we are trying to attack the hiker--but that is a possibility. If we choose to arm ourselves, will not many other fishermen these days?

The reason that I mentioned possible witnesses is that experience indicates that it is highly unlikely that they will recall seeing anything that would justify your action, and quite the contrary, their testimony could well undermine your story and seal your fate.

So, given the problems, what might be some solutions? Pepper spray has been mentioned. How high are the wind gusts?

How about a waling stick? Might it be possible to keep him out of arms' reach, or should it become necessary, to parry a knife should one appear?
 
Having framed the situation, let's look together at the possibilities, after assuming that for some reason the man keeps following, and throwing out the idea of letting him get within slashing range:

We draw and he stops, and that's the end of it (good);
We draw and he stops, but we are reported (not good);
We believe that we are forced to fire and we do so, but the existence of his weapon sufficently supports our defense of justification (worse);
Same, but we do not prevail in our defense (still worse).
Click to expand...

If you are following me and fail to heed warnings to stop you are a threat. Preparing to defend yourself against a threat is not illegal.

He is unarmed so his ability or means of causing death or grave bodily injury have been determined to be his arms and legs. Once he has followed me ignoring my commands to leave me alone he has shown his intent. Now all that remains is opportunity. Opportunity to use his ability and that comes as the distance closes.

Just because the guy smiles while following you doesn't make him any less a potential threat. Just because he has not given a clear clue to his intent doesn't make him less a potential threat. He should be considered a threat (if he has the ability to harm you) until he convinces you otherwise. This may not be politically correct but it is reality.

Reasonable people don't ignore commands to stop or don't come any closer. Reasonable people don't continue to close on a man pointing a gun at them who is clearly fearful of your presence. And for the add on being followed part, reasonable people don't follow someone that they are scaring by following. Reasonable people definitely don't do these things without saying a word.

So IMO reasonable people in a jury would understand my concern/fear and justify my drawing of my weapon and perhaps even the shooting should the stranger get to close.
 
AH.74, the only facts the OP provided:

Unknown man is walking rapidly toward you, but not in an overtly threatening manner.

He doesn't respond to verbal challenges.

End of facts.

Your assumptions: His approach in and of itself poses a threat; if he doesn't respond to your verbal challenges, he is very obviously a threat; continued non-response justifies drawing; continued approach after draw justifies shooting.

And great, you've been accosted in the woods once, congratulations.
Click to expand...


First of all, that is a very jerky and obnoxious thing to say. I was not just accosted, and if I had handled the situation differently I might have been killed. Very nice of you to talk down to me like that. I would not marginalize your experience if the situation was reversed.

And second of all, you're wrong about the initial facts. The person has also ignored verbal warnings to stay away, and is continuing to advance as a gun is being pointed at them. That is apparently not a threat in your world.

I think if you're going to behave as immaturely as you have indicated, I will be done trying to discuss this with you.
 
Then you would think your responses would be more appropiate if you supposedly dealt with them "in real life." You're not acting like it.
Click to expand...

Zincwarrior, there was nothing supposed about it. I hope you never have to go through anything like it. Try not to be such a hater, it's unbecoming and lends nothing to the discussion. I have no reason to lie to you.

None of my responses have been inappropriate, whatsoever. I'm still here talking to you, for the moment, and wasn't charged with a felony as you seem to think I should have been.
 
Your posts throughout this thread have been on the edge of flame baity, AK, don't get on a high horse now. Further, you're also assuming others posting have not had life experiences. Thats an assumption and thats wrong. More importantly, its not relevant.

You may have had an experience in you past where events happened and they didn't prosecute or you were no billed or something. But unless the OP is your life story, its no more relevant than anything else, as it fills in facts not related to the OP.


Its a strange hypothetical case with little bearing on reality, and there are posters from a variety of jurisdictions. I can say with the original fact pattern noted, if you pull a piece and pop somebody based on the sole fact that they appear and don't stop when you yell at them, and the police find out, you're going to jail. Its like a test question on CHL test or something and how NOT to handle a situation.
 
Last edited:
AH.74, you're right, the OP has drawn a weapon in the scenario - but since the argument is whether drawing is even legal or appropriate, I've discounted the drawn gun part of his "facts."

"Hey, I pointed a gun at this guy for no legal reason, and he didn't do what I wanted... so I'm justified in shooting now, right?"

So, I won't give you or the OP that "fact."

As far as maturity levels, you're right, I shouldn't have been condescending toward your having been attacked. Even though you were belittling my hypotheticals of injured, disoriented, deaf, or non-English speaking folk - ALL of whom have been encountered in wilderness settings, and none of which are actually much of a reach - I should not have belittled your incident. Although it was a one-off, and not statistically significant, it had direct meaning for you.

But your incident doesn't make your suggested reactions any more reasonable, to a typical juror.

And your attitude merited a certain degree of snarkiness. Based on zincwarrior's last post, it seems I'm not the only one who feels that way.
 
Posted by threegun: If you are following me and fail to heed warnings to stop you are a threat.
Click to expand...
Well, maybe, but that's not by any stretch of the imagination enough to conclude that the person poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. Even if one were to so conclude, it wouldn't pass the reasonable person test. Too many elements are missing.

Preparing to defend yourself against a threat is not illegal.
Click to expand...
Depends upon how one prepares. Drawing a firearm would be unlawful, absent the rest of the elements (ability, opportunity, and jeopardy). It would comprise a very serious felony (probably aggravated assault, depending upon the laws in the jurisdiction), and as discussed below, it could also lead to the person with the gun being shot, quite possibly legally.

He is unarmed so his ability or means of causing death or grave bodily injury have been determined to be his arms and legs.
Click to expand...
That's known as the disparity of force defense.

It's a tough one, but it can work. What courts have allowed include a gender difference (male attacker vs. female defender); a significant size difference; disparity of numbers; a fit attacker vs a physically impaired defender; or a significant difference in fighting skill, provided that the defender knew about it in advance. And it's still a tough one. The fact that it has been shown that one person can kill another with fists or feet will not cut it.

Reasonable people don't continue to close on a man pointing a gun at them who is clearly fearful of your presence. And for the add on being followed part, reasonable people don't follow someone that they are scaring by following. Reasonable people definitely don't do these things without saying a word.
Click to expand...
Whether or not the hiker is a reasonable person does not enter into the question of what the fisherman my lawfully do.

What the hiker might reasonably do if he has not actually started an altercation and someone has pulled a gun on him is going to vary, but one cannot outrun a bullet, so retreat is out of the question.

However, at that point the strange hiker would likely have reason to believe that he was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, and that he would be justified in employing deadly force i any way possible against the man with the drawn gun. A third person viewing the scene could easily conclude the same thing; he just might fire away, and he just might be judged as having been justified under the law.

So IMO reasonable people in a jury would understand my concern/fear and justify my drawing of my weapon and perhaps even the shooting should the stranger get to close.
Click to expand...
Not in my considered opinion, and as a matter of law, it is quite possible that the jury would not even be instructed to consider the matter as a self defense case. Distance and the fact that he is acting strangely are only part of the formula. More likely, they would be given the instructions that apply to an aggravated assault case, if no shots had been fired, or those that apply to a manslaughter or murder case, had the hiker been killed

There are three links in post #94 that should explain all of that rather thoroughly. Read and study them carefully. After having done so, if it is at all possible, do your self a real favor and sign up to attend MAG-20/Classroom, Armed Citizens' Rules of Engagement: A two-day, 20-hour immersion course in rules of engagement for armed law-abiding private citizens. That course will provide one with more knowledge on the subject than is taught in law schools or in police academies.

The above recommendation is not aimed at threegun. Everyone should heed it.

All of the above is 'vanilla" stuff that applies in all jurisdictions. To better predict how it would come down in a particular jurisdiction, it would be necessary to know the law and all of the relevant case law, the jury instructions for each kind of possible case, and if possible, the leanings of the local prosecutors and sitting grand juries.
 
As far as maturity levels, you're right, I shouldn't have been condescending toward your having been attacked. Even though you were belittling my hypotheticals of injured, disoriented, deaf, or non-English speaking folk - ALL of whom have been encountered in wilderness settings, and none of which are actually much of a reach - I should not have belittled your incident. Although it was a one-off, and not statistically significant, it had direct meaning for you.
Click to expand...

Good point. I will apologize to AK as well.
 
Oldmarksman, Earlier I asked you how you would have handled this scenario. your response was to follow the link provided.

Considering the facts available and assuming you are both about equal in size how would have handled this personally? A play by play so to speak.

FWIW I would rather err on the side of caution even at the risk of law. I feel in this case that the stranger has an obligation to not put me in fear of him, death, or grave bodily injury. He made several mistakes including ignoring a command to stop and not getting an ok to close on me. In the woods things aren't the same. When you approach people or camps you make verbal contact. In the middle of nowhere you are your only defender. There is no backup or LE to call. There are no witnesses. A bad call in this scenario equals a fight for your life. If you lose you die. According to your threshold even if the man attacks you, you would have to wait until you are being beaten and unable to defend yourself to pull or shoot, if you and the stranger are of equal size. I see that as tactical suicide and wouldn't purposely allow it ever and at any legal risk.

I'm not going to follow the OP's steps. I will add some court friendly tactics to confirm the strangers intent. If I cannot escape or persuade him to stop he will force me to defend myself.

I hope you can see the our side on how dangerous it is to allow some stranger to do what the OP posted unchallenged. I'm looking forward to your personal response to it.
 
on a side note

we've had picture contests but I might have to nominate this one for thread of the year for Craig91...lol...or at least involve it in a contest for best scenario with moderators. :D
 
Its definitely a darned if you do darned if you don't type scenario. It mixes the legally appropriate with the tactically appropriate and in this case they are oil and vinegar. Its the gray area type scenario that guys (and gals) like us should be discussing now and not during.
 
Posted by threegun: Oldmarksman, Earlier I asked you how you would have handled this scenario. your response was to follow the link provided.

Considering the facts available and assuming you are both about equal in size how would have handled this personally? A play by play so to speak.

I hope you can see the our side on how dangerous it is to allow some stranger to do what the OP posted unchallenged. I'm looking forward to your personal response to it.
Click to expand...

The reason for suggesting following the links provided was to give everyone the rules of engagement. I am aware that that does not answer the question. I subsequently put forth in Post #123 some thoughts on how one might deal with this most difficult situation, hoping for some constructive comments or some other suggestions.

I understand that, had evasion failede, drawing a firearm might be the only reasonable alternative available. I also know that that could lead to his or her being charged, or charged and convicted, or shot.

So, how about a less than lethal response?

I mentioned a walking stick. Yes, that could be considered a bludgeon, which is a deadly weapon. However, it seems to me that it might suffice while causing minimal injury.

Its definitely a darned if you do darned if you don't type scenario. It mixes the legally appropriate with the tactically appropriate and in this case they are oil and vinegar. Its the gray area type scenario that guys (and gals) like us should be discussing now and not during.
Click to expand...
Yes on all counts.
 
I mentioned a walking stick. Yes, that could be considered a bludgeon, which is a deadly weapon. However, it seems to me that it might suffice while causing minimal injury.
Click to expand...

that is not going to work for me; we shouldn't have to try and be understanding. Someone average at hand-to-hand combat could take the stick away from you.
 
that is not going to work for me; we shouldn't have to try and be understanding. Someone average at hand-to-hand combat could take the stick away from you.
Click to expand...

I agree a stick stinks. Even big hard sticks. I hope this doesn't flame the escrima stick fighters LOL.
 
Posted by youngunz4life: that [a stick] is not going to work for me;...
Click to expand...
Works for most people. Are you recommending the use of a firearm?

...we shouldn't have to try and be understanding.
Click to expand...
Who said anything about being understanding? We're trying to keep from possibly being stabbed or slashed if the hiker turns out to be violent, and from being locked up for a very long time for using unlawful force.

Someone average at hand-to-hand combat could take the stick away from you.
Click to expand...
Most of the time, a gun beats a stick, a stick beats a knife, and a knife beats hands.

Ever read any of Ayoob's stories about old guys doing in a couple of violent criminal actors with a cane?

What would you do?
 
Ihave just read the scenario and skipped to the end, a drive by I suppose :)

First of all I would have stopped what I was doing and faced the man walking toward me and first would have tried to speak with him such as, hey what's up? Can I help you? When he was still 15 or so yards away from me, if he ignored me I would have moved out of his way to see if it was me he was after or was he just deaf and tired walking in a straight line and if he changed his course to match mine I would have pulled my gun and made clear my intentions to defend myself if he kept advancing ( deaf or not a gun in your face is a sign to stop ) I would shoot him once he got within 7 yards of me.

Logical thing would be to shoot him in the knee cap incase he had a heat stroke and temporarily lost his mind, but in the" laws eyes" that's wrong. So better safe than sorry
 
I already said what I would do, so I am not going to repeat myself. If it came down to defending myself I wouldn't rely on a stick. If I was surprised I would go hand-to-hand(I would take the luck if I could get one swing from the stick).

Who said anything about being understanding? We're trying to keep from possibly being stabbed or slashed if the hiker turns out to be violent, and from being locked up for a very long time for using unlawful force.
Click to expand...

that's your problem: you shouldn't have had to rely on the damn stick in the 1st place. do yourself a favor if he tries to slash you. feed him dinner before he crosses over to the other side with a cylinder full
 
As far as sticks go...

... they are very useful if one encounters a snake or small to medium critter.

They can be useful if one manages to injure a leg or foot.

They are good for just resting on.

They can also be used for steadying a rifle, in some scenarios.

As far as self-defense with sticks goes, it's something that, if you think you might employ it, you should actually get some training. A trained person with a stick can lay a hurting on somebody. An untrained person... I'd put even money, or even give you better than even, that I could take that stick away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top