Two attackers, one armed?

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Swampy459

Inactive
Let's say there's two robbers that stop you in a parking lot. one displaying a knife with the cliche "gimme yo money!" ... do you treat them as one threat and shoot at both (disparity of force), can you safely assume both are armed from a legal standpoint?

I could see a prosecutor saying "well yeah, you could shoot the guy with the gun/knife, but the other guy was unarmed"

thoughts? experiences?
 
I would assume that once you have drawn your weapon, the need to shoot might drop dramatically, since you have brought a gun to a knife fight. In my experience, the presence of a superior weapon usually (not always, there is no vaccine for dumbass) causes the thugs to retreat.
 
You can't shoot someone who's not a threat to you.

Shooting the guy with the knife is straight self defense. Shooting the guy who's unarmed is wrong from a legal and moral standpoint unless he goes for the dropped knife or he attacks you even after his partner has been shot.

Anyone who attacks an armed person who's just shown that they're willing and able to shoot in self defense is either highly trained and capable of winning (or thinks he is) or crazy or dangerously high. In any case, I'd be in fear of death or serious bodily harm and I'd shoot.

If the unarmed partner reacts the normal way, by backing off and running, let him go.
 
The knife wielding attacker brings back a memory from my days as a police recruit. We had a drill called shoot don't shoot,( the camera was your eyes, and you had a hand control with a button that was the trigger on your handgun). One of the drills was a suspect who had a knife and was standing app. ten feet from you when he throws it at you. You have only a moment to shoot or not. I shot and I failed.....I was told that once the knife left the creeps hand, he was no longer a threat, and all I had to do was dodge the knife. Sounded crazy to me, and that was back in 1973. So I guess how close the dirt ball is before you light him up is important. Now I'm retired, and even being a former LEO, I hope I never have to face your or any other situation. Because I learned a long time ago, when it comes to a shooting you are going where no man has gone before, and you are on your own.....
Regards,:)
 
Depends...

If unarmed BG continues to approach AFTER I shoot his armed buddy, then he's getting shot as well.

If unarmed BG freezes, retreats, does pretty much ANYTHING to let me know he doesn't want any part of what his buddy just got then no shoot.

Pretty simple.
 
Interesting question; certainly worth thinking about.

If there are multple agressors, I always consider them all threats, armed or not. If it gets to the point that I am shooting, I am prepared to shoot all of them/until I run out of ammo. However, that doesn't mean I would, or one should shoot them all. It is going to take a split second's determination as to whether you have to keep shooting, regardless of how/if one is armed.

It is going to depend on what they do. If they break and run, they are out of the fight and you stop. If they keep going, so do you. It doesn't matter how each is armed, IMO, as there are weapons already in play. They could go for the weapon to use against you (if they don't have one already.) If there are two attackers w/ guns and one turns to run after the shooting starts, you are no more justified shooting him/her than a fleeing unarmed person.


If things escalate to the point guns are drawn, and more to the point, being fired, keep at it as long as any threat persists. If they are unarmed, they know the stakes and are ready to kill by whatever means they've chosen. If anyone breaks from the fight, armed or not, its over and you let them go.
 
You can only shoot someone who is a threat.

If you draw and they run away, you can't shoot at all.

If you draw and they still move toward you, I'd shoot the guy with the knife first. If after that, the other guy runs, you can't shoot him.

If you shoot the first guy and then the second keeps moving in, then you could possibly shoot him. It's going to be tricky defending shooting an unarmed guy. He's not a "group of people" attacking you anymore. I could see a DA making a big deal about that, even though personally, I think he'd have just proved he's mentally unstable if he's walking toward you after you just shot his partner.

Basically, you will have to reassess after each action you take (after you draw, after you shoot once, after each shot thereafter....)
 
If the guy attacks after you shoot his buddy then I can't see how it could NOT be justified. What are you supposed to do, put your gun down and box with him? I'd say retreat is preferred if available (obviously), otherwise you're clear to shoot if he attacks.
 
Japle, don't pass bad advise without clearly stating it is your own opinion ONLY!
The presence of a knife or gun are obvious weapons but it does not need to involve a man made weapon to make a person a threat to life and limb...
At least not where I live IIRC IMHO YMMV!!!:D
Brent
 
You can only shoot someone who is a threat.

If you draw and they run away, you can't shoot at all.

If you draw and they still move toward you, I'd shoot the guy with the knife first. If after that, the other guy runs, you can't shoot him.

If you shoot the first guy and then the second keeps moving in, then you could possibly shoot him. It's going to be tricky defending shooting an unarmed guy. He's not a "group of people" attacking you anymore. I could see a DA making a big deal about that, even though personally, I think he'd have just proved he's mentally unstable if he's walking toward you after you just shot his partner.

Basically, you will have to reassess after each action you take (after you draw, after you shoot once, after each shot thereafter....)
Click to expand...

That sounds reasonable, assuming that avoidance, disengagement, escape, and evasion are no longer viable options.

Also, not to quibble, I don't see a problem with two quick shots before assessing the situation.
 
It is interesting that most of the responses to this situation are heavily biased by the potential action of the District Attorney rather than purely self defense. This is a problem brought about by the rampant increase in political correctness in our society.

When you are personally attacked, adrenaline and the fear of being badly hurt are front and center, and I personally believe that I will not put my self defense actions second while stoping to decide what the DA might do in between each action.

This leads me to suggest that the firearms community needs to spend a lot of effort to educate the unaware public how law abiding citizens have a right to defend ourselves from law breaking thugs - armed or not.

One way to educate the public (and DA's) is to widely disseminate stories of the many times that CCW citizens have saved family, friends and neighbors from brutal attacks by law breaking individuals.

This way, if we are attacked, we can focus on self defense.

Capt. Art
 
Japle, don't pass bad advise without clearly stating it is your own opinion ONLY!
The presence of a knife or gun are obvious weapons but it does not need to involve a man made weapon to make a person a threat to life and limb...
At least not where I live IIRC IMHO YMMV!!!
Brent
Click to expand...

Yeah, right. Whatever you say.

This is an internet forum and the OP didn't hire me as a legal consultant. It's my opinion that he's probably smart enough to assume it's my opinion. ;)
 
Last edited:
This leads me to suggest that the firearms community needs to spend a lot of effort to educate the unaware public how law abiding citizens have a right to defend ourselves from law breaking thugs - armed or not.
Click to expand...

We do not however, either morally or legally, have the right to kill some one who cannot or will not kill us. If you shoot the attacker with the knife and his buddy is just standing there then shooting him is murder, IMHO. Now, having him looking down the barrel whilst you determine his intent to continue the fight is just plain logic but you must not shoot unless and until he makes himself a threat or a continued threat.
 
I think they should both be subject to getting shot. Look at it like this: Two guys set out to rob you, one armed the other not. They confront you and the armed guy kills you, they take the money and run. Now if and when they got caught, the guy without the weapon will still face capital murder charges (initially) In the eyes of the law the accomplice is just as guilty as the assaliant.
 
Shoot armed BG, if the BG that appears unarmed either becomes armed or takes one more step towards you, send a pair to his COM.

If caught in the legal battle I'd argue the fact that I've already used lethal force against the armed BG, so the "unarmed" BG must have really bad things planned, otherwise he would retreat or at least stop his attack.
 
I think they should both be subject to getting shot. Look at it like this: Two guys set out to rob you, one armed the other not. They confront you and the armed guy kills you, they take the money and run. Now if and when they got caught, the guy without the weapon will still face capital murder charges (initially) In the eyes of the law the accomplice is just as guilty as the assaliant.
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt that's how the jury would view it.
 
I seriously doubt that's how the jury would view it
Click to expand...

How do you know for sure? Seems like a pretty valid agument to me. I would doubt a lawyer hasent tried it. They would probably sell it alot better to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top