when to pull?

Posted by Nocturnus31: Push them away, draw and fire. They are committing a felony act against me and I am not sure whether they are going to kill me after they get what they want.
Click to expand...
What you are not sure about will not go very far at all toward convincing anyone that your belief that deadly force had been immediately necessary to protect yourself against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, or to prevent a forcible felony, had been reasonable.

The BG signed his rights away as soon as he threatened me.
Click to expand...
Not according to the law.

Next person that tries to rob me is getting shot at.
Click to expand...
Let us hope that, should that happen, you are able to introduce sufficient evidence to support a successful defense of justification.

In a situation in which the evidence available after the fact is ambiguous, your having made that statement could help bring about your conviction.
 
Give me your money or I will physically attack you.
Click to expand...

(i draw my gun)

"don't make me kill you."
Click to expand...

When a person threatens me with physical harm, he has threatened a person whose arthritis and joint problems preclude normal means of self defense.

What are my choices? Giving him the money is irrelevant, because the threat of violence is already there. I don't know if he is a man of honor who will walk off with my wallet and not hurt me. He's a bad guy, so I expect he will be a BIG FAT LIAR.

so, leaving out a whole lot of "what ifs" and arguing, once I genuinely believe I am probably going to be attacked, the weapon comes out. Once that person makes any sort of move that makes me believe that I am about to be attacked and maybe killed or seriously injured,

I WILL SHOOT HIM, AND EVERYBODY IN SIGHT THAT IS WITH HIM THAT PRESENTS THE SAME THREAT.

This isn't a movie, it's not a script, and I'm not james bond. If someone puts my life in danger, I'm not going to bargain with him, argue, threaten, or waste even one second stalling. If I say "put down the knife or I'll shoot you" in about seconds the knife will be on the ground. either he'll drop it, or I'll shoot him.

Then, I will tell the cops that i was in danger, and I did the only thing that was certain to keep me from getting hurt. Hopefully, I will not be prosecuted.

Oh, and if he has a gun? I will most likely shoot him as soon as he points it at me.
 
"reasonable fear", firearms....

In most places, in order to justify applying lethal force(pulling out or firing a loaded firearm), you(the armed citizen) must have a reasonable fear for your safety. If a thug is unarmed or doesn't seem threatening, I'd avoid pulling out a gun. IF the subject or subjects are armed, following or harassing you or you feel you have no ave of escape(way to leave or avoid the situation), then you can be justified in drawing a weapon.

For context, I'd be aware of your surroundings too and know that many "eyewitnesses" or "by-standers" may NOT come to your aid/be honest with responding officers.
You may stumble across some "street crazy" person or bum that a area's residents may side with or defend in a critical incident. It sounds unrealistic but as a armed security officer in urban areas & some low end places, I can tell you that's exactly what occurs.

CF
 
BrianDg: When a person threatens me with physical harm, he has threatened a person whose arthritis and joint problems preclude normal means of self defense.

This isn't a movie, it's not a script, and I'm not james bond. If someone puts my life in danger, I'm not going to bargain with him, argue, threaten, or waste even one second stalling. If I say "put down the knife or I'll shoot you" in about seconds the knife will be on the ground. either he'll drop it, or I'll shoot him.

Then, I will tell the cops that i was in danger, and I did the only thing that was certain to keep me from getting hurt. Hopefully, I will not be prosecuted.
Click to expand...

Regarding your comment, I am very curious as to what state you live in?
I can sympathize with any physical impairment that puts the attacker at an advantage. I have a herniated area in my stomach which if I allowed an attacker to strike me there it would likely kill me, and medically documented.

I agree with your sentiment too, and there are many states that would be a problem for you. Even in Texas your case would likely go before a grand jury which would likely nobill it. Lots of folks don't like our laws in Texas, including the use of deadly force to stop theft at night or a felon from running off with the loot. Even in Texas if the worst happens your gun will be taken while it is investigated, and you will have to spend money for an attorney if it goes to a grand jury and likely will.

In that light I am curious as to what happens while it is being invesitigated, and if it goes before a grandjury. Do you suppose the CHL or CWP you have
might be suspended during till such time as the matter is resolved. I don't think they take all your guns in Texas, but they take the one involved in
the incident. Some of the other states might take them all.

I guess if I ever move to one of the other states like that I would just have to sell my guns which I do not intend to do, but no use having them if one
can't stop any kind of storng armed robbery.

:D
 
I would like to add two simple but important points to this thread.

Know your state laws.

Be careful what you say on a public media.
 
@Oldmarksman

I'm 32 and disabled with a back injury. If someone threatens to beat me up there is a great chance they could do it with ease and cause great harm to my already fragile body.

As the OP stated "...someone comes up to you and says give me your wallet or ill beat you up..." that sounds like imminent harm to me.

I stand by my statement. I don't want to be beaten to death or become more disabled than I already am. I will shoot to stop the threat against me. I know my state laws and am smart enough to know that if the shoot is not justified then I won't shoot.
 
This scenario happened in my area. As an older lady was getting in her car, a thief tried to snatch her purse. She drew her gun and the criminal ran away. The lady was not prosecuted.

I will draw if I feel like I am in "danger of bodily harm" and/or "to prevent a crime" from happening. I will shoot if my "life or the lives of my love ones are in imminent danger."

I'll have to look those terms up in my state laws to know what those circumstances are.
 
Posted by Nocturnus31: @Oldmarksman

I'm 32 and disabled with a back injury. If someone threatens to beat me up there is a great chance they could do it with ease and cause great harm to my already fragile body.

As the OP stated "...someone comes up to you and says give me your wallet or ill beat you up..." that sounds like imminent harm to me.

I stand by my statement. I don't want to be beaten to death or become more disabled than I already am. I will shoot to stop the threat against me. I know my state laws and am smart enough to know that if the shoot is not justified then I won't shoot.
Click to expand...
Disabled with a back injury? Would that not constitute one of the disparity of force determinants discussed in Post #9?

It would not authorize you to shoot, but it would go a long way toward justifying your use of necessary deadly force against an assailant who did not have a weapon.

Posted by Marquezj16: This scenario happened in my area. As an older lady was getting in her car, a thief tried to snatch her purse. She drew her gun and the criminal ran away. The lady was not prosecuted.
Click to expand...
Again, that would seem to constitute a clear disparity of force--elderly female victim, male attacker.

Two points:
  1. You are describing a robber, not a "thief"; that is a very important distinction in the eyes of the law.
  2. "Was not charged" is good, but is never final; one always remains potentially subject to criminal charges until and unless one has been (1) tried and acquitted or (2) pardoned. Further proceedings are most probably very unlikely here, but consider the recent case of the father and son vigilante team in Georgia: heroes one day, jailbirds the next.

I will draw if I feel like I am in "danger of bodily harm" and/or "to prevent a crime" from happening.
Click to expand...

Here's what you should be thinking:

I will draw if I feel like have reason to believe that I am in imminent "danger of death or serious bodily harm" and/or "to prevent a serious crime" (depending upon the laws in my state) from happening.
Click to expand...

That reason will be assessed and judged by others: investigators, the charging authority, and possibly, a jury.

Should they not agree, the charges will vary by state; something like aggravated assault is most likely.

Again, you have a little more leeway in at least a couple of states (namely, Minnesota and Texas).
 
Remember, intentionally hurting to killing another human is not taken lightly by our legal system (or by out fellow humans, for that matter). Even in those States whose laws may allow a use of lethal force to stop a crime from happening to be justified, it only applies to very serious crimes (typically violent felonies).
 
Great thread

IMO a huge component of this kind of a situation is being left out of the conversation. That is situational awareness. In my opinion this is what will save your bacon. Once the robber is upon you, and threatening you, your options are very limited. My experience is that most people who will threaten violence, will use that violence. Sometimes without warning. It's just as easy, and less problematic to strike someone with a lead pipe than it is to threaten the action and chance resistance. The take is the same. Most violent criminals I've met almost never consider getting caught, so the criminal penalties are of no consiquence to them. As another poster stated...most armed robbers, and muggers are professionals at their trade.

Again situational awareness is the best defense in a armed robbery as I see it. Second IMO is the choice of firearm, and method of carry. Carrying a service sized weapon can be a disadvantage. Once a person believe they may have been chosen as a victim for a mugging or robbery, with a smaller firearm they can choose to cover the subject their hand on their firearm in a pocket or purse. With some small revolvers they have the option to shoot through the pocket or purse. This tactic could be used with a larger handgun as well, but might require the use of a bag or newspaper or something else that would cover the handgun. I dont believe any of these technique could be considered brandishing, or menacing. There's even a name for them. It's called "Covering from the loaded position"

When to pull?.. My opinion is to maintain situational awareness, and to pull/cover as soon as the danger is percieved.
 
MLeake said:
I would modify that post, totaldla, in at least a couple ways.

First, I wouldn't say "somebody is going to die." That could be taken as premeditation to kill. I would say something more on the lines of "I would only draw my weapon if I were prepared to use it, and if I have to use it, I will shoot to stop."

I also wouldn't say a gun can't be used as a warning; there are times when that is legally and morally appropriate. The danger is in assuming that the warning will be all that is needed, or in drawing without being willing and ready to actually employ the weapon should that become necessary.

Bear in mind that statistics indicate 90% or so of defensive gun uses will end with no shots fired; the great majority of cases would not legally or morally justify shooting if the BG ceases his immediate threat, and so a mindset of "I will shoot if I draw" could cause serious problems in around 90% of cases.

That still means there are around 10% odds that if one draws, one will have to fire.
Click to expand...

I disagree and here is why:

  1. I'm not talking to anybody but myself. I have to have a clear line in my mind when I would use lethal force. The gun never comes out unless that line has been crossed. I can always choose to not shoot while I'm putting the front sight in place - but only because the situation has changed.
  2. "Shoot to stop" is the politically correct way of dealing with the media. I must adopt the mindset that if I shoot, the other guy is gonna die - no exceptions because that is what a handgun does. If I can't accept that then I should be carrying pepper spray and/or a tazer.
  3. Presenting a firearm doesn't magically scare away folks, but it does escalate the situation. I've worked with bad guys and very few are scared by looking down the barrel. But waving a gun around is a great way to get yourself killed - and the other guy is justified in doing it.
  4. I'm not in the Cop business. Ever. Period. I don't arrest people. My gun is on my hip to save my life in a situation I can't otherwise get out of.

Don't confuse what you say to the Cops after a shooting with the mindset you must have if you are going to pull a weapon.
 
Posted by totaldla: I have to have a clear line in my mind when I would use lethal force. The gun never comes out unless that line has been crossed.
Click to expand...
Good. In the vast majority of jurisdictions, that is the threshold.

I can always choose to not shoot while I'm putting the front sight in place - but only because the situation has changed.
Click to expand...
I do not believe that that differs from what MLeake articulated, which was that the mindset "I will shoot if I draw" can lead to serious consequences.

"Shoot to stop" is the politically correct way of dealing with the media.
Click to expand...
Rather, it is the lawful objective of the shooter, civilian or LEO; that the other person may die at the scene or some time later is irrelevant to the defense of justification, but shooting after the threat has been stopped is not justified.

You should not be "dealing with the media" at any time after an encounter involving the use of force.

I must adopt the mindset that if I shoot, the other guy is gonna die - no exceptions because that is what a handgun does.
Click to expand...
There are all kinds of exceptions. Handgun wounds are most often not fatal.

Presenting a firearm doesn't magically scare away folks, but it does escalate the situation. I've worked with bad guys and very few are scared by looking down the barrel. But waving a gun around is a great way to get yourself killed
Click to expand...
Again, you are in agreement with MLeake: "The danger is in assuming that the warning will be all that is needed, or in drawing without being willing and ready to actually employ the weapon should that become necessary."

- and the other guy is justified in doing it.
Click to expand...
Only if your presentation had been unlawful in the first place.

I'm not in the Cop business. Ever. Period. I don't arrest people. My gun is on my hip to save my life in a situation I can't otherwise get out of.
Click to expand...
Words to live by.
 
While its obvious that someone who forces us to shoot may die and we must realize that likelihood, from the perspective of the defender what's matters is not what might happen but what our purpose is when pulling the trigger.

It is splitting hairs in some ways, to be sure, but it is an important distinction. Our intention is not based on kill or not kill. It is to end the threat. Whether the aggressor dies or not is not the point. They very well might die, they may very well not. Their blood is on their own hands, they are responsible for their fate.

We are not killers, we are "escapers". When our lives are on the line, escape is what matters. What happens to those who forced the action is not relevant, at that moment.
 
totaldla said:
I'm not talking to anybody but myself....
Click to expand...
No, here you're talking to everyone in the world with Internet access. And what you have written here has become a permanent record.

totaldla said:
..."Shoot to stop" is the politically correct way of dealing with the media. I must adopt the mindset that if I shoot, the other guy is gonna die - no exceptions because that is what a handgun does...
Click to expand...
[1] Shooting to stop is more than just "politically correct." It is the legal limit on your justified use of lethal force. If you have stopped the threat, you are not justified in continuing to use lethal force against the aggressor, even if he is still breathing. If your your mindset is that your aggressor is going to die, and you act on it and finish him off, you have committed murder.

[2] Killing someone is not what a handgun does. Most people who are shot survive.

[3] Yes, if you use your handgun in a way best calculated to effectively stop a threat, there is an excellent chance that the aggressor will die. But the desired result is that he stop, not that he dies.
 
Frank Ettin said:
No, here you're talking to everyone in the world with Internet access. And what you have written here has become a permanent record.
Click to expand...

That's fine. Everything I've said is justifiable. But everything anybody says can be twisted in a civil suit - such is life. Carrying a gun is serious business and I believe it is important to think it through.


Frank Ettin said:
[2] Killing someone is not what a handgun does. Most people who are shot survive.

[3] Yes, if you use your handgun in a way best calculated to effectively stop a threat, there is an excellent chance that the aggressor will die. But the desired result is that he stop, not that he dies.
Click to expand...

I guess we should stop for a moment and consider what "lethal force" means, because there is a huge legal difference between lethal and non-lethal force. Every state considers employing a handgun to be lethal force and the outcome of such force is death. From a criminal law perspective, you have demonstrated intent to kill when you employed a firearm. If your shooting is ruled bad, you will be charged with crimes that declare that you intended to kill. I'm harping on this because "shoot to stop", a PC phrase, can mislead folks in a bad way. I totally agree with you that "coup de grace" is murder, and I don't want to split that hair, but I want folks to realize that when they shoot, it is either (a) justified self-defense or (b) a level of murder (serious prison time - think Zimmerman).

If somebody is uncomfortable with using lethal force, and I understand that perfectly, then they should be carrying pepper spray and/or a tazer. If you pepper spray somebody unjustfiably, you get charged with simple assault.

I don't think we are disagreeing at all. I just think we are dissecting the hairs many ways - and that is a good thing. Thanks for your input. :)
 
I live in missouri. Knowing some of the state laws won't change my reactions. I won't draw except as a last resort. I won't shoot except as a last resort. I will shoot until threat is ended.

What other choices are left other than those? More to the point, would I ever, even in my stupidest moments, say that maybe I overreacted? never.

I ended that by saying
hopefully, I won't be prosecuted.
Click to expand...

I am going to analyze the situation carefully, act carefully and logically, do what I have to do, and hope for the best.

The very last thing I'm going to do is make things harder on myself by any inappropriate behavior.
 
My state's explanation of lethal force(deadly force).....

My state is fairly clear on how it defines lethal force(deadly force).
In short, armed citizens can only use a firearm to defend themselves or others in events where their life or physical safety are in immediate jeporady.
Protecting personal property is NOT considered a valid reason to use lethal force. My state's officials also say firearms can only be used to kill a subject(deadly force). There is no; "shooting to wound" or "aiming for less lethal areas". If you draw a loaded firearm you need to be ready to use lethal force.
Now, don't mistake the lethal force standard to mean you'd stand over a felon who attacked you & shoot them 15-16 times. But if you draw a weapon, you should be fully ready to use it AND to justify your acts later on.
This is why skill training and being fully aware of your area's gun/use of force laws is so important.
As my state's Sec of State wrote in the Div of Licensing handbook for concealed carry holders; "Having a concealed carry license does NOT grant you license to use lethal force."
ClydeFrog
 
Understand that the enemy is not the enemy in his own eyes ;this may offer you an opportunity to make him your friend. If not, you can kill him without hate, and quickly. Only if it's necessary, though. Having a justified opportunity to shoot someone, doesn't mean you should. If there's the slightest chance that you can...I dunno, walk with God for a moment and find that path of no violence out, then you really win. But it's really up to the perp. He makes you pull the trigger or he opens a hole so to speak.

So far so good!
 
totaldla, you may know what you mean by "shoot to kill," as in "shoot to stop, but realize that results could be lethal, and that regardless of outcome you have employed deadly force."

However, your audience does not know that, unless you so state it from the outset.

For one thing, that creates a potential hole that you might have to one day plug. Changing your wording could avoid creating that potential hole in the first place.

For another thing, a person who doesn't understand your full intent but who only catches the apparent meaning could take that as advice to always shoot to kill. I hear such things from people all the time, on the lines of "My concealed carry instructor told me that if I draw, I have to shoot, or I'll be arrested for brandishing." I doubt the instructor meant that, but that has been the takeaway for many new CCW carriers I've met, based on conversations with people I've met at different courses.

What I'm getting at is that what you look at as "splitting hairs," I look at as you creating potential problems for not only yourself, but also for poorly trained people who may stumble across your post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top