To warn or not to warn? That is the question.

Status
Not open for further replies.
"Everybody has to draw their own lines in the sand. When those lines are crossed, reactions should be instinctual. My lines are drawn based on the knowledge and experience I have."

^^^I believe this pretty much sums up the reasoning of the instructor who wanted no verbal warning. When that proverbial "line in the sand" is crossed - it's time to act, and all your mental faculties should be concentrated on getting your weapon out and stopping the threat rather than yelling something at them...
 
A civilian, unlike LEO, has no requirement to go up the use of force ladder, ie, verbal, less than lethal, then lethal. You can go from "in fear of life" to bang. There is no need to say anything before shooting.
 
Posted by 9x45:
A civilian, unlike LEO, has no requirement to go up the use of force ladder, ie, verbal, less than lethal, then lethal.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, the civilian has no sworn duty to uphold the law, or to pursue or apprehend anyone.

In many jurisdictions, it would be unlawful to use force to attempt to do so.

You can go from "in fear of life" to bang.
Click to expand...
Not exactly. It's reasonable fear or belief, not trepidation. It requires that all of the conditions pertaining to the lawful use of force--ability, opportunity, jeopardy, and preclusion--be met.


And the civilian, like the LEO, may us no more force than is necessary.

There is no need to say anything before shooting.
Click to expand...
True, but it may be a very good idea.
 
A civilian, unlike LEO, has no requirement to go up the use of force ladder, ie, verbal, less than lethal, then lethal. You can go from "in fear of life" to bang. There is no need to say anything before shooting.
Click to expand...

There is a common misconception that a LEO has to "climb the ladder" in the use of force scale. That is simply NOT true.

The LEO (much like anyone) can immediately use whatever force is APPROPRIATE to the situation. There is no need to attempt to use empty hand control holds against a person armed with a knife...nor to give ANY verbal commands to a person threatening you or anyone with a gun. Although, most agencies today are teaching to shout "GUN" as you draw and shoot during qualification and training.

I teach the "use of force" scale as an elevator...Not a ladder. A ladder must be climbed one rung at a time. An elevator goes directly to the level needed.
 
if you are on the street and you see the threat in a "reasonable" time..... yelling drop the weapon as you line up your sights can help you in court if it ever comes to that. of course if you are being attacked, you draw and fire.
 
Posted by Sharkbite:
I teach the "use of force" scale as an elevator...Not a ladder. A ladder must be climbed one rung at a time. An elevator goes directly to the level needed.
Click to expand...
That's a good way to look at it.
 
Sharkbite, I never said LEO had to go one rung at a time, but rather that the ladder simply doesn't exist for non LEO. Of course ability, opportunity and motive must still be present. And yes it may be a good idea to yell stop, stop, stop, but it is not required. The problem in CA is that even in a clean shooting you can still be dragged into civil court, unlike other states.

These is a similar thread going on at GlockTalk, I though post #36 was interesting


http://www.glocktalk.com/threads/trigger-modifications-for-carry.1604828/page-2#post-22758404
 
Posted by 9x45:
The problem in CA is that even in a clean shooting you can still be dragged into civil court, unlike other states.
Click to expand...
You can be "dragged into civil court" anywhere.

In a number of states, if you are able to present enough evidence (preponderance of the evidence standard) to convince the court that your action had been lawfully justified, the court will make you immune from civil liability--any suit would be dismissed.

In a very few, your expenses may be reimbursed....
 
clean shooting
Click to expand...

The problem with the concept of a 'good shoot' (this is commonly heard on the Internet) is that there is not a mathematical proof of a good shoot. It is always a consensus of those involved in evaluating such.

One's opinion and the jury's might vary.
 
if the situation has devolved to where your life is at stake, I'd say you just don't have time to yell out warnings. If the situation calls for deadly force, discussoin and negotiations are already over.
In other words, as a Citizen, I don't seen any use for warnings.
 
You will break the Internet with common sense advice, Deaf.

Isn't that it? There is no set answer. It depends on the situation. The best advice is to be able to discern the situation.

The one caveat is that you should not freeze if it moves to a shoot situation or you enter the situation and you are not able to shoot because of some personality issue.

I have seen folks in FOF who find they cannot and thus decide carrying is not for them. The same occurs, I am told by folks who train such, that some folks who have to work alone in wild animal country have to be screened for the ability to shoot a critter if need be. Some can't.
 
You will break the Internet with common sense advice, Deaf.
Click to expand...

Thanks Glenn...

And folks, two wrongs don't make a right, but it does make us even (but not in court.)

So watch what you are doing.

Deaf
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top