Two attackers, one armed?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hm, interesting. Disparity of force changes millisecond by millisecond. Two guys with a knife versus one innocent? Yep, disparity of force. One defender with a gun, a disabled or dead knifer and his unarmed buddy standing there with wet pants. The entire situation has changed. Shooting a man who is posing no threat is murder. It doesn't matter what he was doing or intending to do 2 seconds ago. It matters what he's doing RIGHT NOW. Shoot him before he threatens you and YOU are the BG. NOW, which side has a disparity of force? Now who is the attacker?
Click to expand...

Very good analysis!

I wonder what the shooter's chances would be of successfully arguing that, with the rapidity of the action at the time, a reasonable person would not have been able to make that assessment?

I imagine it would depend on a number of variables, including the make-up of the jury, the testimony of witnesses, the distance between the shooter and the man without the knife.... and perhaps whether the prosecution had anything like a macho internet posting to establish mens rea...

Thoughts?
 
A lot of food for thought here, it seems there is no one correct response to any threat. However, since I was trained by the USMC and I am an advanced martial artist, I am in the "shoot both" camp. Why both? Well, the first one with the knife is obvious, he is the most apparent/greatest immediate threat. Two rounds, high torso/base of throat for him, end of story. And since I shoot pretty fast, the second one may not have enough time to turn and run before he gets his two rounds. He also presents a threat, because his intent is to do great bodily harm, whether by use of his hands or a hidden weapon, otherwise he would not be there in the first place. Even if he just intended to intimidate me with his physical presence, there is a term for that also, it is called "strong arm robbery".

If he turns and runs, I'll let him go to tell the story of the day his world stood still, even if only for a split second. He'll need to change his clothes, anyway.

And yes, you don't shoot unless you feel that your life is in immediate danger. This ain't TV.
 
I imagine it would depend on a number of variables, including the make-up of the jury, the testimony of witnesses, the distance between the shooter and the man without the knife....
Click to expand...

I'm sure all that and more. That's why "I'd do this or that..." is so unreliable.


I wonder what the shooter's chances would be of successfully arguing that, with the rapidity of the action at the time, a reasonable person would not have been able to make that assessment?
Click to expand...

I don't know. IMO, that and many more variables are why it is imperative that we have considered our actions BEFORE we have 1/2 a second to decide.
 
Why make the assumption that shooting anybody is the best way to handle this? I don't know how much money you carry around with you, but I'd bet it is less than paying the attorney will be after you shoot somebody.
Click to expand...

I see David is suggesting compliance again. Compliance does work about 87% of the time with no harm other than the loss of property. It is the other 13% that scares the hell out of me. David is assuming that the wallet is going to be the only loss. That very well may be a fatal assumption.

Neutralize the immediate threat. If the 2nd player acts in an aggressive manner, then you have to believe that he too is armed as he engages you. Neutralize the second threat.
 
I see David is suggesting compliance again. Compliance does work about 87% of the time with no harm other than the loss of property. It is the other 13% that scares the hell out of me. David is assuming that the wallet is going to be the only loss. That very well may be a fatal assumption.
Click to expand...

Well, you could throw down a spare wallet and draw a gun at the same time...

Low cost, low risk.....
 
That's easy.

If all he has is a knife I can take it away from him in an instant and stab him in the head with it while slamming the other guy to the ground so hard it will break his skull open at the same time.

But that's just me if you need a gun to defend yourself in that case you probably just want to pull it and aim and shoot the guy with the knife in a way he can never have any children to make sure no more idiots like him get added into the already full gene pool of morons while telling the other guy to hit the ground hard or your aim might be better on him as his friend is screaming in pain and foaming at the mouth.

When making the police report be sure to mention how your not a real good shot at all with that pistol in a situation like that or that guy might be dead now instead of just childless from then on :D
 
When making the police report be sure to mention how your not a real good shot at all with that pistol in a situation like that or that guy might be dead now instead of just childless from then on.
Click to expand...

I believe that would probably seal your fate.
 
The only wallet I will give a crook...
AND BOY AM I GONNA LET 'EM HAVE IT!!!!
Click to expand...

Not to stray off topic, and I'm no expert, but that wallet holster looks like it might be classified an AOW (Any Other Weapon) under NFA rules...
 
hat wallet holster looks like it might be classified an AOW (Any Other Weapon) under NFA rules...
Click to expand...

No more than any other holster. The gun is not part of the holster. It's not a "wallet gun" or some such thing. It's a gun in a wallet style (pocket) holster.
 
I see David is suggesting compliance again. Compliance does work about 87% of the time with no harm other than the loss of property. It is the other 13% that scares the hell out of me. David is assuming that the wallet is going to be the only loss. That very well may be a fatal assumption.

Neutralize the immediate threat. If the 2nd player acts in an aggressive manner, then you have to believe that he too is armed as he engages you. Neutralize the second threat.
Click to expand...



You can calculate the results for 1,000,000 incidents that have happened previously, but you can't predict with ANY certainty what THIS badguy is going to do THIS time. It doesn't work like that. Each situation is completely unique and independent of every other situation before it. Because there is a HUMAN involved.

But hey, if it were really that simple, then any ol' body would be able to comprehend it and we wouldn't need PhD's to know what to do.

My point is, determine what YOU think is the best course of action for THAT SPECIFIC situation, with THAT SPECIFIC badguy(s), and do what YOU think you need to do. Not what you think 87% of people before you did. What they did doesn't matter, unless ALL of them were confronted by the SAME badguy(s) under the exact SAME conditions.
 
No more than any other holster. The gun is not part of the holster. It's not a "wallet gun" or some such thing. It's a gun in a wallet style (pocket) holster.
Click to expand...

As I said, I'm no expert. It looks like it was designed to allow firing the gun without removing it from the holster, otherwise why is the trigger exposed? And I can imagine a reasonable person might assume it was designed to make a gun look like a wallet (enough so that you yourself described it as one, and implied you would present it as one), and it looks a lot like "wallet guns" I have seen that were classified by ATF to be AOW's. I would add that I personally think some of the arbitrary details of the NFA are ridiculous.
 
A couple of points

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?
Click to expand...

I'm surprised, or not I guess, no one has asked for more information before advocating "smokin" both "perps" with 45's akimbo. The situation seems very vague, is it dark or the middle of the day? Is this a crowded Wal-Mart parking lot or you are alone 20 miles from anywhere? How close is the store/building? How close is your car? Are these kids or pro-wrestler looking guys? There is far too little information presented for anyone to make a decision about the application of deadly force.

Why do the criminals in these threads always use such poor English? Perhaps we should carry hardcover copies of "The St. Martin's Handbook". Mine is 798 pages, only measures 8.5 x 6 inches and weighs about two pounds. One could administer quite the beating with it, then leave it with the criminal so he could improve his English skills! No concealed carry license required!:)

Presenting a knife and asking for your money is not justification to kill two people, or even one. Did they duct tape your mouth and tie your feet together prior to their request? Tell them no, loudly, and run if need be. (handicapped excepted) Is it the "manly" thing to do? No, but neither is being some guy's boyfriend in federal prison. Even in states where you are not required to retreat, why in the world would you risk everything by shooting someone unless it was absolutely the last option possible?

This the wrong board for my opinion, I realize, but I want to ask a few of you to re-read your posts and think about the situation. With very little to go on, many folks advocated shooting one, sometimes both people in question. I hope this is just internet bravado and not an indication of truly how you think, because; if so, you may just have a surprise coming if you ever do find yourself in a similar situation, and react the way you posted.

I'm off to Wal-Mart in a few minutes, so I'm going to make a makeshift holster for my St. Martin's Handbook, in case anyone needs any "English lessons" while I'm there....:cool:
 
Last edited:
This is not the wrong board for suggesting something other than immediate shooting. Reasoned responses to a situation is what sophisticated training and discussion is about.

The arguments about compliance usually center on:

1. What is the acceptable risk level for any action and the evaluation of the consequences?

2. If compliance would lead to a better outcome, some people are offended by that as they feel compliance is a blow to their ego and world view of themselves.

3. That leads to posturing as compared to realistic discussion of risk.

If you factor out ego, then we can discuss what leads to a best practical outcome as compared to an ego driven outcome.
 
There is far too little information presented for anyone to make a decision about the application of deadly force.
Click to expand...

I was operating under the assumption that, in this particular case, the OP had already decided that it was necessary to shoot the first BG and was curious about opinions on what to do about the second guy.


This the wrong board for my opinion...
Click to expand...

Quite the contrary actually. Especially considering that you are apparently able to express yourself without abusing others.:)
 
Last edited:
David is assuming that the wallet is going to be the only loss. That very well may be a fatal assumption.
Click to expand...
David makes very few assumptions, and really doesn't like when people attribute assumptions to him that he hasn't made and would not make. No place has David assumed the wallet is going to be the only loss. David has suggested you try the easy way out first to see if that works. Please do not try to put words in David's mouth. Thank you.
 
You can calculate the results for 1,000,000 incidents that have happened previously, but you can't predict with ANY certainty what THIS badguy is going to do THIS time. It doesn't work like that.
Click to expand...
Actually, you can. That is the problem with people trying to discuss statistical analysis who apparently don't understand statistical analysis. You can make a prediction and you can do it with a very defined level of certainty. That doesn't mean you should ignore or disregard the outliers, it simply means you can make an informed decision on what is likely to happen, if you want to.
What they did doesn't matter, unless ALL of them were confronted by the SAME badguy(s) under the exact SAME conditions.
Click to expand...
Again, that is just not an accurate statement.
 
You draw your .45 ACP and gun the knife wielder down. Then you tell the other one that you like him and thats why you decided to shoot him last.:p
 
This the wrong board for my opinion, I realize,
Click to expand...
Actually there are several here on this board that oppose the "shoot early, shoot often, and shoot whenever you can" mentality and regularly recommend a more reasoned and rational approach. Welcome aboard!
 
There is far too little information presented for anyone to make a decision about the application of deadly force.
Click to expand...

Let's see, there are two attackers and one is threatening you through the brandishing of a knife and telling you to give him the money?

Let's see, opportunity, ability, and intent. Yep, the necessary information is there for making a decision.

David makes very few assumptions, and really doesn't like when people attribute assumptions to him that he hasn't made and would not make. No place has David assumed the wallet is going to be the only loss. David has suggested you try the easy way out first to see if that works. Please do not try to put words in David's mouth. Thank you.
Click to expand...

David assumes that trying the easy way out of compliance is prudent in a life threatening situation as per his suggestion that it be tried first. David then also assumes that if his compliance suggestion does not work that there will be time to re-evaluate the situation and come up with a secondary choice in time to save one's life.

I am suggesting there may not be time for such niceties being as the threat is established.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top