Scenario: Unarmed assailant advancing

"Scenario : You are fishing off the shore at an isolated lake in the mountains, in the distance you see a man approaching you."

Been there many, many times. Lots of solo hiking. Ex-girlfriend did the AT solo the year we broke up. Me, I'm too lazy. Maybe why she left me. ;) Most of my backcountry has been limited to solo trips of only 3-4 days. Lots of 3-4 day solo backcountry trips though.

"You are openly carrying."

Cool. Sometimes I OC. Often in the woods. Usually CC in the city but that is a different debate. ;)

"He has no apparent weapons, and is walking rapidly, but not in a necessarily threatening manner."

We call that hiking. Most people who hike outside of a city park do it at a rapid clip. Often zoned into their walk, like a long distance jogger/biker/kayaker. I'm not an adrenaline junkie (though I've been accused...) An endorphin junkie though? Oh, yeah.

"As he gets close to you, you turn to face him, and he continues approaching, closing in closer than 7 yards."

Woods are full of natural trails. Trails made by animals and used later by people. This is all still VERY normal for the true backwoods. At least in my experience in the southeastern mountains, southwestern desert mountains, pacific northwest and northern woods.

"You tell him to stop, he continues approaching, as if he did not hear you."

Let's repeat that last part... "as if he did not hear you." And, maybe he didn't? The reasons are myriad. Hard of hearing (me) and he didn't understand you? Non-english speaking and didn't understand you? Nowhere in the above scenario has the OP discussed engaging any body language that would indicate the person-in-question stop. No raised hands. Also, he says "tell him;" not yelling, redfaced and gesturing. The guy is in a zone? You hike long enough and get into an endorphin high, your pulse is pounding in your ears, you hear your own respiration and you are walking at a rapid clip.

All you did was "tell him to stop." One time... you are armed and he is "non-threatening."

The OP does not say whether it is day or night... we might safely assume day since he says the person-in-question is approaching from a distance. Still, I won't assume, though I believe we safely could.

Now, you are out fishing at an isolated mountain lake. Everything above has happened...

Do you feel threatened? I wouldn't. Maybe you would. I feel more threatened - I'm CONVINCED I'm more threatened - on a routine basis in urban environments. Still, I am *not* allowed to legally draw and/or shoot someone in the situation above nor in an urban environment with no more evidence than the above. Does this "rapidly walking" "non-threatening" person have on earbud/iphones?? Heck, all we've done to alert the person thus far is to "tell him to stop." You turned to face him and mouthed something from 21 feet away.

Some people say "hello" when passing in the woods. Other people respect that folks have gone out of their way to get away from people by going into the middle of the woods and attempt to avoid disturbing them by keeping quiet and passing on by. Particularly fishermen!

If, for some odd reason - clearly not your intuition, since you've stated he appears "non-threatening" - you feel the need for action: RUN. RUN AWAY. RUN FAST AND HARD. CLIMB A TREE.

Does that seem extreme? :eek: Does it seem silly? Not nearly as the next quote from the OP.

If you feel embarrassment at the idea of running from this "walking rapidly, but not in a necessarily threatening manner" person in the woods - this person who, in my experience in the woods, would not be indicating anything unusual in their behavior... If you feel embarrassment that running is too extreme, then I suggest that:

"You draw your weapon and point it at him while yelling at him to stop."

... is entirely too extreme.

The OP has NOT satisfied the need to retreat from this non-threatening source before drawing down on someone.

"He continues approaching."

Whoa. After all of the above - and I strongly feel that the OP, as directed in his quotes, DID NOT satisfy the requirements to threaten someone with deadly force and could / should be criminally prosecuted and not be allowed to wander society with a firearm or a 4,000 moving vehicle - the person continues approaching?! Well, heck yes he is a threat and shoot him graveyard dead!:mad:

(Deep breath.)

Seriously though... as long as we follow the OP's quote line word for word and not throw in our own variables, he did NOT satisfy the legal - heck, I think even the reasonable - requirements of the situation before he drew a firearm and pointed it in a deadly manner at another.

If the OP felt that frightened and apprehensive, then run, run run. Does that seem silly to you? Yeah, it does to me, too.

If the OP had felt threatened by this person "walking rapidly, but not in a necessarily threatening manner" - AND the OP had begun to run... AND THE person began to chase him. Then, yeah. We gotta problem in alpine-lake-land. Heck, we gotta made for tv movie. Shoot 'em graveyard dead! Climb a tree? They start climbing up after you? Graveyard dead, baby.

What the OP describes though at the stage of the drawing the gun - things really don't warrant it in the direct quotes based on typical behavior of folks out hiking and fishing. Drawing the gun was without good cause, at least IMHO. The judge/jury can make that determination if the OPs situation was actual rather than hypothetical. The person-in-question - *after the gun was drawn* and the OP yelled rather than a single "tell him to stop" - continuing to advance?? Well, heck yeah a threat. Though the OP would have made so many assumptions of threat without evidence prior to the illegal aiming of a firearm at the PIQ, wow.

"In the woods things aren't the same. When you approach people or camps you make verbal contact." Approaching a camp in the dark? Absolutely. Trail hiking in the day? Not necessarily so at all. Again, other people respect that folks have gone out of their way to get away from people by going into the middle of the woods and attempt to avoid disturbing them by keeping quiet and passing on by. Particularly fishermen!


I wouldn't expect someone who is afraid for their life to be so concerned with the law that they put themselves in jeopardy. The old, judged by 12 rather than carried by 6. No doubt.

I also wouldn't like to share the woods with anyone, based exactly on the word-for-word quotes, who felt like drawing on someone based on those above quotes was truly warranted.
 
Posted by youngunz4life: I already said what I would do, so I am not going to repeat myself.
Click to expand...
Well, you have said this:

If he just ignored me and kept rapidly advancing, I would definately draw...
Click to expand...
So, what is it that makes you think that you would not stand a very high chance of losing your fortune, your clean record, your gun rights, and you personal freedom, if you were to draw you firearm because an unarmed man had come your way in the great outdoors?

But you have also said this:

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.
Click to expand...

So would you choose to not stand your ground, or to draw? Hint: the former is a lot more likely to keep you out of jail.

And just what is it hat makes you believe that "people would die"? Has the mysterious hiker given any such indication?

that's your problem: you shouldn't have had to rely on the damn stick in the 1st place.
Click to expand...
That would be great. How would you put yourself into that situation?
 
yes, I did say those things as well as a host of other things. This isn't a biased news forum. If I felt ok(which is very possible), I would just continue fishing. If the scenario made me uncomfortable I would do as I and many others have said. I am not going to agree with you and your snippets aren't changing my mind. sorry, ain't buyin it. The fact is either way it is handled it can end good or bad. I can tell you one thing; the cane bit won't work so shelf that in the back of the old playbook. (laughing+still picturing it) don't get me wrong, canes can work, but I think if you found yourself in the dangerzone you would rather draw(you know the time when you know it is do or die), and I do believe old marksman that you might know something was up if and when it was up). I'm w/threegun, when that time does come I'll talk to LEO after the fact. I watched a thruhiker come my way from afar, very afar, last summer in montana on the continental divide up near or getting close to canada(I was at a memorial statue at an isolated rest area). He looked like a vagabound but I could tell he was a hiker like my dad. You know I don't even remember when he passed me because the first two times he was still too far away. Was I unaware? No, the guy wasn't a threat. If he was it would've been different. I know you enjoy the debate, but maybe you could possibly try and see other's side instead of trying to disect it so much. It just all depends as pond and I have mentioned(me more than once). I am sorry I offended you when I insulted your walker, all the best - gunz:D
 
This article from John Farnham is a good one to read, heed, and bookmark for future reference.

The application is universal. It may be useful to see how it might apply here.

The first layer ("Nonattendance") is not relevant. We are already at the lake. Nor would I suggest not going, though I agree with others that it was probably not very wise to have gone there alone.

The second layer ("Functional invisibility") does not really apply very well either in this situation because there is no crowd in which to blend. Note, however, that if one were fishing by oneself near a highway with one's fancy truck parked by the shore, the failure to have heeded the functional invisibility rule could prove to have been a serious mistake.

It is at the third layer ("Deselection") that the article begins to apply here. Part of it is bearing and projection of confidence. Another part is deterrence. One cannot help but think that open carry, if it is an available option, might help here.

When I go places where I cannot carry a firearm, I carry a Blackthorn walking stick. While it is an effective fighting implement (and using it in that application would probably constitute the use of deadly force), what I have found is that men walking toward around me or walking toward me from the opposite direction seem to give me a wider berth.

The fourth layer ("Disengagement"), involving, disengagement, separation, and exit, has already been discussed in previous posts. It is the thing to do. Move out of the hiker's path, and if necessary, keep going.

Should that fail, Farnham rightly says that "we must simultaneously be prepared to instantly respond to unlawful force with superior force".

In Minnesota and in Texas, producing a firearm is lawful when it is necessary and when physical, non-deadly force is lawful; not so anywhere else. It would be far better to have a less than lethal option available.

And if one is not? Well, as I pointed out previously, a disparity of force defense might be available for a female or for a person with physical limitations. For others, there is the possibility that one might be able to make an argument on the basis of Dennis Tueller's experiments that one had no alternative but to use deadly force.

Would it work? There's no way of telling for sure, but it is a fact that there are people serving time, and more have done so in the past, after having used deadly force against even very large, dangerous and violent unarmed assailants.
 
Moderator note:

This is an excellent subject for discussion, as it's a real life scenario with no easy answers. At this point, that's the only reason it's still open.

However, at almost 150 posts, things are getting repetitive and a few are getting grumpy.

I ask that those few take a few deep breaths and count from one to ten. Otherwise, it'll be a countdown from 10 to 1 ;).

Even so, every thread has a life span and this one's approaching its end. Counsel should start their closing arguments.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Zincwarrior, I fail to see how I can be accused of posting flame-baity things- I've mostly been repeating that I believe an attack was occurring in the OP.

And the reason I have taken such interest in this thread, and persisted in the face of being accused as trigger-happy and wanting an excuse to shoot someone at my first opportunity, is precisely because something very similar to the OP scenario happened to me. I find that to be highly relevant.

I appreciate the apology, and offer my own in return. I prefer to stay on good terms with everyone here.
 
"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.
Click to expand...


MLeake- as to the first point, I must still disagree with you. It's not "no legal reason," it's because on the face of it there is an attack occurring and the actor is in fear of imminent harm. If someone can't act to defend themselves in that situation, I don't know what you consider will apply. I remain strong on the viewpoint that I will not let someone physically attack me before I feel able or justified in trying to prevent it from happening.

As far as the second- I appreciate that. And I don't feel I was belittling your input, I was just saying how I thought about it. If you took it that way it was not my intent. I still think to superimpose those variables is misplaced based upon the OP's scenario, and I also did not interpret some of your comments as being of a joking nature. If that had been clear to me I would have responded differently.
 
I deal with customers of all shapes and sizes here at the pawnshop I manage. All are potential threats IMO. All capable of producing a weapon and robbing the joint. My point for this information is that sometimes someone comes in that raises my hackles even more. Why? I can't answer that because you just had to be here.

In the woods, alone, I think I would just have to be there to get the full feel of whether this stranger was a threat. Reading about it and living it are two different animals IMO. Especially with the unanswered but very important variables like are we on a trail, did the stranger change course to make contact, etc.

I have been in a few sticky situations and they simply cannot be described with enough feeling to give even a pinch of how crappy and fear filled I felt during the event.

I kinda feel that being in some close call situations makes you more understanding of how this could make one feel concerned for their safety.

I know this experience has caused me to never give any threatening stranger the benefit of the doubt at the expense of my immediate safety even at the risk crossing into the grey area.
 
Posted by threegun: In the woods, alone, I think I would just have to be there to get the full feel of whether this stranger was a threat. Reading about it and living it are two different animals IMO. Especially with the unanswered but very important variables like are we on a trail, did the stranger change course to make contact, etc.
Click to expand...
That's very true and it is well put. It also applies in urban and parking lot situations of the kinds we often read about here.

I have been in a few sticky situations and they simply cannot be described with enough feeling to give even a pinch of how crappy and fear filled I felt during the event.
Click to expand...
So have I, and that's true.

I kinda feel that being in some close call situations makes you more understanding of how this could make one feel concerned for their safety.
Click to expand...
Yes indeed.

I know this experience has caused me to never give any threatening stranger the benefit of the doubt at the expense of my immediate safety even at the risk crossing into the grey area.
Click to expand...
Good advice.

As Capt Charlie has said, "This is an excellent subject for discussion, as it's a real life scenario with no easy answers. "
 
As Capt Charlie has said, "This is an excellent subject for discussion, as it's a real life scenario with no easy answers. "
Click to expand...

To most of us, I think you included, I believe the answer is easy but out of the specification posted by the OP. **Simply move in a lateral direction , more commands to leave you alone, retreat, more commands to stop, pull, more commands to stop or else, point, more commands to stop or else, and finally defend.

**if the stranger is big enough to be able to justify them as a DOF threat.

The scenario as posted is definitely a doosy.
 
threegun said:
I deal with customers of all shapes and sizes here at the pawnshop I manage. All are potential threats IMO. All capable of producing a weapon and robbing the joint. My point for this information is that sometimes someone comes in that raises my hackles even more. Why? I can't answer that because you just had to be here.
Click to expand...
This is a really good point. I also run a business that's open to the public, although my clients are a bit more "upscale" than those who frequent pawnshops. But the moment someone walks in the door, I can distinguish among potentially good clients, people who are canvassing or want to sell me something -- and people who just set off my hinky-meter. The latter are very rare, thankfully, and sometimes I know why they raise my hackles, sometimes I don't -- but I always trust that instinct. (And my 60# dog, who comes to work with me, has the same reaction to those people, which doesn't hurt.)

Good discussion, and one in which (for the most part) we've actually been listening to each other... :)
 
I just came across this thread and don't have any argument or point to add except this is the one situation that concerns me the most. Not so much at a lake (don't go there much - never alone) but while getting gas, or elsewhere where anybody can approach me directly.

I wish there was a definitive answer supported by law but this seems pretty much you're toast no matter which way you go. I will say I haven't yet had anybody approach that had "Gonna Kill You" on his shirt but have had some with that 40 miles of bad road in drug county written all over them.

Overall good thread.
 
Old Lincoln,

Try this next time someone targets you for panhandling or worst. Scenario you are pumping gas and unknown stranger makes a b line toward you. Once it becomes clear that he is coming to you but before he gets to close, ask him what he needs. If he continues tell him that he is close enough, again done well before he is on you. If he fails to stop tell him very loudly not to rob you that you have no money. At this point they have stopped every time apparently not wanting witnesses to think they were robbing you or maybe thinking you are a nut job since they hadn't announced a robbery.

A friend of mine shared this and it works.

P.S. If they continue to approach begin to maintain separation perhaps putting your car between you and the idiot.

This forces them to show their intent prior to making contact with you. You remain in control.
 
I could have phrased this better

Wow, I go on a fishing trip to an isolated mountain lake with my girlfriend for a couple days and come back to find this thread really took off. (Just to clarify I ended up taking a can of bear spray along for the trip.)

My original phrasing could have been much more clear, I apologize, I was trying to get it typed up fairly quickly. Though its a little late in the thread to change anything, Ill try to clarify on some things.

John's "Unarmed person approaching" title, would have probably been more appropriate. But yes, the thread was biased toward the possibilty of the man being a lethal threat, which is why it is posted on this forum.

The state would be Arizona. The man would be walking toward the lake, you didn't see where he came from, but behind him is a clearing about the size of a football field, with nothing but trees behind it. No visible structures. And you have waved to him, and attempted to greet him in a friendly manner before he got too close. No response. Just eye contact, and continued advancement. For the sake of the argument, I would say that you did change your position, and he continued advancing toward you, not the spot you were originally standing. You have strong reason to believe he intends to make physical contact with you.

The scenario was intended to analyze how to recognize and deal with the worst-case-scenario of a criminal who may have seen an attractive woman fishing from a distance, and noticed she was carrying a gun. He liked the idea of having the woman, he liked the idea of having the gun, he could easily overpower the woman, and he does not believe she would actually shoot him before he could take away the gun. Or similar circumstance. But, we do not know any of this information beforehand, so how should we deal with the man approaching? At what point should the gun be drawn? At what point should the trigger be pulled?

Again, I found no perfect solution to this. So I opted to carry a can of bear spray in addition to my SP101, and me and my girlfriend stayed together the whole time. Im happy to report that the few people we did encounter were all very friendly and interesting, and we had a great time.
 
Glad to hear you had a nice trip.

Yep, "friendly and interesting" is pretty much the norm for the folks I meet in the backcountry. The farther I am from the road, the less I worry, and if I've put a 2.5 k portage between me and road/powerboat access... I'm a very relaxed camper.

And you have waved to him, and attempted to greet him in a friendly manner before he got too close. No response. Just eye contact, and continued advancement. For the sake of the argument, I would say that you did change your position, and he continued advancing toward you, not the spot you were originally standing. You have strong reason to believe he intends to make physical contact with you.
Click to expand...
Yeah, seven pages later, I think we've established that this one is a tough call. That said, if someone is bent on mischief (or worse), and sees that you're moving off-line, moving away, and knows you're carrying a gun, if he's halfway smart, he'll be talking to you in a "disarming" fashion in order to get closer: "Hey, I'm lost, do you have a topo map?" -- or something else along those lines.

If someone maintains a totally silent approach and keeps coming even in the face of avoidance, even in the face of a drawn weapon, in my mind there would be only one possible explanation:

He's one of the undead... a... zombie...

(Just call me "Threadkiller." :D)
 
my thing is he could've been abducted by aliens though and thus still disoriented. All joking aside, heavily wooded areas are hotspots for those from out of this world
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top