Some scenarios for use of deadly force

[Glenn E. Meyer]

My belief is that you are better off handing over what the aggressor is looking for and hoping the situation resolves itself without force. I do not believe aggravating an already aggressive person is decreasing the risk of the use of force by one party or the other.

I find it interesting that folks have a IMO about how the criminal will react if they do this or that. How do you know that? Are you telepathic or a skilled observer of criminal behavior such as Dr. William Aprill?

One thing in a good FOF is that we can script responses that may not be in accord with your Internet opinion.

Yeah, it depends on the trainer. Find a good one.

 

[OldMarksman]

At "give me your wallet" distance I think I can prevent someone from drawing and "win" the subsequent physical encounter.

Okay, try it. Try a dozen scenarios. Different "robbers", including people whom you do not know. The other guy defines what "give me your wallet" distance means.

Then tell us whether you still really think it would be a good idea to wait for an armed robber to draw first.

Wear safety glasses. Make sure both of you are using training equipment.

 

[Lohman446]

One thing in a good FOF is that we can script responses that may not be in accord with your Internet opinion

Of course those scripted responses may or may not reflect reality either. I recall sitting in on one course that "specialized" in teaching hand to hand combat against multiple attackers. The problem was the "attackers" all kind of stood in a circle around the defender and waited their turn. It may have been a useful test of endurance but not multiple attackers. I found it unrealistic and moved on.

Okay, try it. Try a dozen scenarios. Different "robbers", including people whom you do not know. The other guy defines what "give me your wallet" distance means.

I have. Though I will admit "give me your wallet" distance has not ever varied enough to create much variance and I have had a pretty good idea of the skill level of the other participants. Some of them would "always" win too. Then again they would have always beat me had a gun not been involved at those distances anyways.

 

[OldMarksman]

Of course those scripted responses may or may not reflect reality either.

What are you trying say? Are you pointing out the obvious, that in the event something may happen that was not tried in simulation?

What are we supposed to do with that?

I have. Though I will admit "give me your wallet" distance has not ever varied enough to create much variance and I have had a pretty good idea of the skill level of the other participants. Some of them would "always" win too.

And you still believe that to be the thing to do?

And why, pray tell , would you ever even consider waiting for an armed robber to draw first?

 

[Lohman446]

And you still believe that to be the thing to do?

And why, pray tell , would you ever even consider waiting for an armed robber to draw first?

The same type of exercise tells me I will win the physical conflict more often than I would win a quick draw competition. The people who always won the physical conflict were VERY skilled fighters.

I know the question "how do you know the aggressor is not a VERY skilled fighter?" I don't. I also do not know if he or she is VERY skilled gun-fighter who will win a quick draw every time.

 

[OldMarksman]

Lohman, marksman was specifically speaking solely about a spoken threat with no evidence of a weapon as stated in the original post. He was referring to my comments on that statement in the original post. Factually, a threat that is nothing but "give me your money or I will kill you" with no means to do so is not justifician to draw a weapon and kill the assailant.

The scenario as described had the robber saying "I have a gun. Give me your money or I will kill you".

In that circumstance, I think that a reasonable person would believe that the threat was imminent and real.

Real, enough, that is to justify and to make very prudent, the drawing of a firearm for self defense--and to make it very imprudent to not do so.

Firing it? I don't think so--yet. I suggest that it would likely never come to that.

One other thing--a defender in an armed robbery is never, ever, justified in attempting to kill a robber.

 

[spacemanspiff]

Why do I say pizza? It's fun to do a hold up with the good guy holding a pizza or the good guy holding a pizza and entering a house where things go bad - and see how many folks still carry the pizza around.

Yeah going up against a baddie with a pizza in your hands is fun, but if ya want REAL life scenario try doing it without spilling yer MGD lite.

1. Guy comes up to you, pulls a gun from his pants, and says "Give me your wallet or I'll kill you."

2. Same deal, but he only lifts his shirt and shows you the grip of his gun...but doesn't draw it.

3. Same deal, but he puts his hand under his shirt in what looks like a gun-gripping, getting-ready-to-draw move...but you never see a gun, just his hand disappearing under his shirt.

4. Same deal, but he only says "I have a gun...five me your wallet or I'll kill you."

Everyone should keep in mind that compliance has never guaranteed survival. What one chooses to do or not to do may be different from what you or I choose to do or not do, but that doesn't necessarily mean those different choices are wrong.

As for number 3, I have had something similar happen to me. No death threats, no demands for my wallet, but a confrontation by someone who I am positive had intent to rob me. His accomplice seemed to have approached too soon with the getaway car thus spoiling their chance. But he did continue the interaction, following after me for about a block, trying to get me to stop and talk to him. His hand was in his coat pocket, and my hand was on my holstered pistol. I had limited escape options, being middle of winter, running on icy streets is out of the question, and there was enough traffic I could not readily cross the street. He eventually broke contact as I caught a break in the traffic but as he did he reached out to slap my hand holding the grip of my gun and he said 'Bang', then he retreated.

He was far too close for comfort, but had not made any explicit threat upon me, displayed no weapon, otherwise I would have drawn. Can't say if I would have won.

 

[Lohman446]

The scenario as described had the robber saying "I have a gun. Give me your money or I will kill you".

In that circumstance, I think that a reasonable person would believe that the threat was imminent and real.

Real, enough, that is to justify and to make very prudent, the drawing of a firearm for self defense--and to make it very imprudent to not do so.

I think you have hit on a point that some of us forget. "Using" your firearm to escape a situation does not necessarily mean using lethal force*. I once had a threat made across the counter by an individual who was there with two others while I was alone. Stepping back and putting my hand on my holstered pistol ended the encounter.

I had not put a lot of thought into scenario four. I recalled, in passing, reading of a bank teller who told a robbery suspect "no" http://www.sacbee.com/news/nation-world/national/article176918921.html and had the suspect simply walk out. Interesting case-study but might not be useful for discussion or even indicative of what is likely to happen.

My thought process in situations like this, as far as justification for the use of force, is to consider if I would convict the shooter or not should he or she use lethal force. I did not consider if I would convict or not for brandishment and in consideration would not in those scenarios.

Scenario 1-3 were simple for me in that, absent a compelling reason not to I would acquit. A "live by the sword, die by the sword" type thought process. Bring a gun to a robbery and end up having lethal force used against you its the game you played. Scenario 4 I would lean towards acquittal but I really would need to hear the rest of the story. Again stupid is as stupid does - don't elude to a gun if you are not willing and able to use it. Please don't take this as legal advise as I am not qualified and can only tell you how I would lean as a juror based on very little knowledge.

*I get that is what we are trained to do. I get that most of us know that. However the collective we, or at least myself, sometimes forget that in these conversations.

 

[briandg]

My thought process in situations like this, as far as justification for the use of force, is to consider if I would convict the shooter or not should he or she use lethal force.

That is a huge portion of what i think of every time one of these "what if" or any other discussions come up.

Would I convict? Maybe I'm already throwing my computer across the room and yelling "YOU MORON"! it matters a bit where it happened, who the shooter was, who his 'victim' was, etc, but not as much as whether or not a person shot in a situation that was clearly lacking in genuine provocation or risk. If I, a reasonable man by the legal definitions, am saying "I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT YOU DID THAT"! i am already practicing for when the situation comes.

There was a case recently in chicago. Kid asked a guy for his wallet, guy said no, kid shot him without another word. of course there are random and chaotic events With thousands of killings every year, probably every scenario we write has already happened somewhere, right?

I decided many years ago that I'd rather fake a seizure, vomit, piss my pants, and start yelling for my mommy while rolling around on the ground. I will either be shot, beaten, robbed, or maybe even left alone. Sometimes I really do believe that dying would be better than going to trial and being imprisoned.

 

[OldMarksman]

....it matters a bit where it happened, who the shooter was, who his 'victim' was, etc, but not as much as whether or not a person shot in a situation that was clearly lacking in genuine provocation or risk.

What do you think that provocation might have to do with immediate necessity?

 

[briandg]

I once came into a #3 situation. Gas station, gangsta guy screaming obscenities at a bunch of teenagers standing around a church van, with his right hand stuck in his pants. I was perpendicular to his vision. I stepped out of my car and just waited in the shadow of my car with my gun holstered. Idiot yelled for about a minute then got into his gangsta mobile and left. No gun shown, no explicit threat to kill, only a lot of swearing and name calling with no provocation from the kids that I ever saw. even showing my weapon at the time would have gotten me in trouble. It got me in trouble anyway, my wife yelled at me all through the rest of the drive for taking such a chance.

Other circumstances would have obviously meant many other things. Neither a verbal threat to kill nor a demand for cash mean anything in reality, these scenarios will be judged on their own merit on a case by case basis, and it will always depend on whether the opponent needed to be shot to end a threat that he presented.

Want to hurt someone's feelings? tell him "I wouldn't even draw my gun if an armed robber said that he was going to kill you." It would be ironic if the guy punched you in the nose.

 

[briandg]

What do you think that provocation might have to do with immediate necessity?

So now you are editing the quotes that you hand pick to eliminate parts of the actual dialogue?

The courts will decide that, as well as every person who hears the story.

How do you reach necessity? Well, I guess that it reaches immediate necessity when A GUY WITH A WEAPON PROVOKES YOU. If there is no provocation, what are we even talking about?

 

[muzzleblast...]

In essence this discussion has been about a potentially violent criminal threatening to end an innocent's life. Whether scenario 1, 2, 3 or 4; the potential worst case outcome for the victim is death by murder.

It seems there are those who would advocate adopting the role of the lamb taken to the altar, and those who actually understand what led to "The Onion Field."

If ever it comes to it, I only hope for my "Dead man's ten seconds."

 

[Lohman446]

Incredible difference between handing over one’s wallet while maintaining control of ones firearm and handing over one’s firearm and getting in a car as a kidnap victim. I hope most of us understand the difference

 

[briandg]

Brilliantly put, Lohmann, muzzleblast, and very important. Compliance and appeasement are even involved in global warfare. Sometimes it works, sometimes not, sometimes we misread all of the cues, sometimes the other guy misread them.

Either way, neither party knows the outcome in advance, but only the instigator knows the plan and possible outcome in advance, and often, the instigator is stupid, unstable, amoral, treacherous. Compliance that means surrendering options that could keep you safe should be a low priority on the option list. Really simple there. Weigh it. Can you overcome the person or persons who pose a threat? If not, compliance may be better than initiating a fight that you can't win. Compliance may prevent escalation and give the events a possible outcome that doesn't involve dying.

In some ways it's pointless to even think about these things except to try and gather personal wisdom and insight into what actions may lead to safety.

The onion field involved two men who put faith in their ability to survive without weapons and were mistaken. They might have failed to recognize any cues that were present. They didn't know that there was already a plan. Maybe they could have made a choice that didn't kill one of them.

I know that people get tired of hearing me repeatedly talking about chaos, fate, and the will of God but those factors are more important to the eventual outcome than most people think.

Maybe if both cops had broken into a run the shooter would have missed?

 

[OldMarksman]

So now you are editing the quotes that you hand pick to eliminate parts of the actual dialogue?

I have edited absolutely nothing.

How do you reach necessity? Well, I guess that it reaches immediate necessity when A GUY WITH A WEAPON PROVOKES YOU. If there is no provocation, what are we even talking about?

No. Provocation has nothing to do with it.

Necessity derives from a situation in which the defender reasonably believes that the robber possesses the ability (weapon or not, and he does not have to see the weapon) and the opportunity to cause death or great bodily harm; a condition of jeopardy exists (the robber's statement in the scenario at hand establishes that); and other means of defense are not available (preclusion).

 

[raimius]

Can you articulate a set of facts and beliefs that a reasonable person would consider just cause for a fear of imminent death?

What if the criminal does not have a gun? Well, you need to provide more info. The totality of the situation, or what a reasonable person would perceive as the situation, is what matters. The WISQARS database returns 217 homicides under "struck by or against" for 2016 (last reported year of data). People are perfectly capable of murder without firearms...

If a naked grandma said, "give me your wallet or I'll kill you," a reasonable person would not likely give that threat much credit. If a person built like an NFL defensive lineman said the same thing, or a person appearing to be concealing something that could be a weapon said it, a reasonable person would give the threat more credibility.

 

[OldMarksman]

Well put.

 

[Jazzgun]

From a woman's point of view....

1. Guy comes up to you, pulls a gun from his pants, and says "Give me your wallet or I'll kill you."

2. Same deal, but he only lifts his shirt and shows you the grip of his gun...but doesn't draw it.

3. Same deal, but he puts his hand under his shirt in what looks like a gun-gripping, getting-ready-to-draw move...but you never see a gun, just his hand disappearing under his shirt.

4. Same deal, but he only says "I have a gun...give me your wallet or I'll kill you."

So he would probably refer to my purse instead of my wallet. I also presume this might be in a desolate and maybe even dimly lit place where he would not be seen or attract attention. And I would probably be alone because it's doubtful he would try to rob me if my husband was along. So....first off I would be terrified. Not so much that he was going to rob me as I might be terrified that he was going to also rape me and torture me and and then kill me anyway. It's a bit different when you're a woman.

Still, even if he had his gun drawn and pointed at me I would not attempt to outdraw him. But I would assume at that point that it was my life or his and that I must be smart about it. I would be glad I had a concealed weapon and wasn't completely helpless. I would stay as far away from him as possible and gently toss my purse to the ground. I would not be worrying about identity theft or credit cards or whatever cash I had in my purse. I would be thinking about surviving. And still, my concealed weapon would be my ace in the hole in my mind, all the time wanting him to just take my purse and leave.

However, once he picked up my purse I would be ready to do whatever it took to defend myself from any further advances I perceived to be threatening to my existence or safety. I would consider myself to be in extreme danger and that my life completely depended on whatever actions I took at that moment.

He wouldn't be thinking I was armed. He would be thinking I was compliant. This might be my last chance to do something to save my life. Even though I had already given him my purse.

I would wait for him to turn and leave, but if he took one step toward me I would grab my gun from my waist holster and then if he shot me at least I would know I didn't choose to be the victim, rather I tried to fight back.

The same goes for #1, #2, #3, #4. I would feel just as threatened under any of those circumstances.

Otherwise...what would be the point of my concealed carry?

 

[Jazzgun]

I am bumping this thread up because I haven't gotten any kind of response to my comment about the scenario of what would I do, or rather, what would be the appropriate thing to do in the event someone confronts you and says "Give me your wallet, I have a gun and I'm going to kill you." Along with 3 other scenarios.

Most appear to think the lawsuit that would ensue if you decide to take action in order to protect yourself would be too expensive and therefore you should do nothing. I guess let the perp kill you? It doesn't make any sense to me to even carry a self defense weapon if you think like that.

What if the person who confronted you said "Give me your wallet. I have a knife and I'm going to kill you?" But you couldn't see the knife. Horrifying thought. Somehow the thought of being attacked with a knife is so much more horrible than being shot. Would you still do nothing because you were afraid of how much a lawsuit would cost you?

I'm confused here. I hope someone will respond.