Why Carry? Pt II

T

TBeck

New member
This post is to continue the discussion about Chris' encounter in the park. See Part I for the full details.

A point of contention seems to be whether Chris erred by allowing the suspected miscreant to approach within the 20 ft "Tueller distance" that allows an attacker armed with a contact weapon to pose an immediate threat of death or grave injury.

My position is that in a situation where you only SUSPECT that the individual plans to attack, and the individual is coming closer there is no effective challenge that will keep the person away and not also break the law or contribute to a confrontation.

The miscreant wanted to approach. Short of telling him you are armed and intend to use force if he approaches what can you say that will cause him to stop? If you make this threat absent of a clear threat from the person approaching you are now the aggressor and he can charge you with aggravated assault. A person had better be darn sure about the intentions of the person approaching. How do you justify your threat based upon mere suspicion? "He was a teenager from a minority group?" Good luck! The fact is that you can't draw down on everybody you suspect may want to harm you. If you could, no Democrat could leave their house :).

If you verbally challenge the person with the equivalent of "Get the he!! away from me!" you are now getting into a verbal argument. You have just violated the higher standard of care to which the armed citizen is held. You CANNOT contribute to a situation in such a way as to cause it to escalate to a physical attack and then be justified in using lethal force to defend yourself. The case law is clear on this. Only an innocent party is justified in using lethal force to protect themselves.

Chris did the best that he could. He placed his hand on his concealed weapon so as to ready it for immediate use. He did not draw the weapon since he had not yet been threatened. The only thing he should have done if circumstances allowed was slowly retreat as the person advanced. But if there is an obstacle behind him or retreating puts the person closer to his family then retreat is not a viable option.
 
I hate to beat a dead horse but the crux of your argument is:

My position is that in a situation where you only SUSPECT that the individual plans to attack, and the
individual is coming closer there is no effective challenge that will keep the person away and not also break
the law or contribute to a confrontation.

***

Since that is not the opinion of a great number of folks in this business, could you tell me what evidence supports your position.

If you challenge and say - 'Can I help" you in a firm voice and determined body language, folks like Greg Hamilton, Ayoob and Holschen indicate that many approaches will be thwarted as the criminal sees you are not easy. This is supported by research in criminology and other social sciences.

If the person refuses, experts suggest you say something of the order:

"Don't come any closer, you are scaring me,
I am in fear of my life. "

Still with force and determination.

If the person or persons continue to approach, you are in a better position to draw your firearm and then say "Don't Move".

Of course, you have to indicate why force disparity supported this need to draw.

You also should be moving at this time.

Please indicate what evidence supports your position as compared to that of folks who have gone through classes like SVT from Insights and the like. Why is the research on this incorrect?

It is nice to speculate, it is nice to fantasize about putting your hand on your gun and having that action scare the BG.

Some folks see the gun as their tool and every situation is a nail to be hammer.
That is not what most trainers say.

There were options before the reaching for the gun.

Please give us some sources to support your opinion.

Sorry to be a butt on this but (ha ha), folks have really studied this sort of thing.
 
I agree with TBeck. It was a public park. The young men (whatever their intentions) had as much right to be there and approach the table, as did Chris and his family.

One can not, (with no weapons being displayed by the encroachers) demand they stop and not approach a public table in a public park.

By being as ready for trouble as possible, Chris did about all he could do, given what he related in his post.

I've been in a situation where I had to show a handgun to stop a man holding a crowbar, from coming around behind me, although not in a public park. His buddy was in front and I had no intention whatsoever of allowing him to come in behind me. The sight of the Colt .45 made him change direction, and I ordered him to drop the crowbar, which he did. Without my showing the pistol. I'd have been in a world of hurt.

Not the same, exactly, as Chris, but I still hold with TBeck. JMHO. J.B.
 
Yes, I believe the Tueller distance analysis is only relevant if the aggressor is in fact wielding a contact weapon (knife, club, etc.). Absent a visible contact weapon, there is no right to threaten deadly force. As to whether or not to issue an ambiguous or innocuous "challenge", I think that comes down to the personality of the defender/GG. If one has a confrontational personality (not pointing any fingers G.E.M.), then such a challenge ("Can I help you", etc.) is not improper and would probably in fact have the desired intimidating/deterrent effect. If, OTOH, one is inclined naturally to mind his/her own business and not speak unless necessary, then I think the actions actually taken were right on the money FOR HIS personality. Had he personally tried to issue a "challenge" which was unnatural to him, it would have a much higher liklihood, IMO, of "coming out the wrong way", and actually starting a verbal exchange, or perhaps even sounding timid, thereby encouraging the suspected aggressor to attack. In other words, I don't think there's a "right" answer.
 
My purpose for the original post was not, as has been suggested, for "chest thumping," or any other silly reason. Neither was it to present the ideal scenario. Just figured folks--particularly those charged with protecting families--would find the situation not only interesting, but also serve as a healthy reminder that bad things can happen in nice places.

Other than being somewhere else that day, however, my only regret is in not standing the moment they pulled into the lot.

Thinking back, it's quite possible that, given the angle of their approach, and since my wife was sitting in front of me on the bench, with some play structure between our position and theirs, that they did not see me at first, or possibly my kids, and assumed this was just a petite young woman. Had I stood earlier and moved away from her to a position that gave them a better view of me from the start, they may have not even come over at all. However, once they did see me, they had plenty of time to turn around or otherwise break it off, but didn't.

I am not ignorant of the value of verbal challenges, and use them routinely (I work in an inner city) when necessary, from the more friendly ones suggested to some less friendly statements that have won me many friends ;) However, in this case, I decided that maintaining unfriendly eye contact while reading the situation and deciding on my next move with this kid was sufficient, since he was not making any overtly threatening gestures. He definitely knew that I knew that he was there, and was watching him closely. "Hi," "How you doing," "Can I help you," "Nice day isn't it," "Whassssssup!!" would have all been, in this case and IMHO, utterly superfluous and a waste of time in this particular situation.

While it would have been even more effective had I been standing before they got close, I think my posture, body language, and eye contact spoke volumes to this kid, aided by the fact that I'm typically not the friendliest, most sociable guy on the block anyway.

I heartily agree that the "right" outcome doesn't necessarily mean that everything was done correctly. But I maintain that adding some sort of verbal challenge (friendly or not) to what I would call my "nonverbal" one would not have changed his behavior, and could possibly, in the case of a very unfriendly challenge on my part, made this guy want to prove something to his buddies.
 
Something similar occured to me and my then 15 year old son a number of years ago.

We had gone to lunch at one of my favorite restaurants as a child (chili dogs to die for...almost literally!); however, the area had become really seedy in the past couple decades.

We had parked behind the joint and an adjoining pawn shop, nose in to a concrete block wall (Bad, bad thing to do #1).
We entered, ordered at the counter, and took a table off to the side at the rear of the place, & sat waiting for our order to come up. In the meantime, a couple of local "Trolls" had entered, and one had locked eyes with my son, who happenedto be facing the door (No-no #2). As my kids attended a racially diverse school, and were involved heavily in M/A, he picked up on it, but said nothing. Both BG's stood with their backs to the wall, softly conversing, looking at the menu on the wall and glancing occasionally in our direction.
We got our food and ate. As we were leaving, I asked my son if he'd like to take a look thru the pawn shop next door, & he agreed.
Now Mutt & Jeff were still propping up the wall as we walked by, and one of them got in lockstep about 3 paces behind me. I picked up on him right away, but seeing we were exiting one doorway and entering another 2 feet away, I figued nothing would happen. This confused the knucklehead though, as he did a stutter step when we turned into the pawn shop. He kept walking & turned around the corner into the parking lot.
My son asked if I saw that, and I assured him I did. I mentioned they were probably out to strong arm us, but decided against it once we made the turn...figured it was all done with (mistake #3) We spent about 15 minutes in the shop, then exited and took the path the bozo following us had taken a few minutes prior.
As we crossed the parking lot, my son stated "Dad, unlock the car...UNLOCK THE CAR....DO IT NOW DAD!!!" as his voice increased in volume.
Jst as I stuck the key in the door, I heard an engine rev, and an old beat up pickup was coasting up to the rear bumper of my Suburban. I hit the power lock and swept back my coat, putting my hand on my Glock 21, just as the truck driver's door started to open. Right at that moment, everything froze, as he saw me, with hand on something big and black, tucked behind my right hip, and my eyes locked on his.
Evidently he decided that this dog had teeth, and hollered to his buddy to get in the truck. They tossed the gearshift into reverse, then drive, and exited the parking lot stage-right.
Even though I screwed up 3 times, it was a win/win situation.....my son and I were able to walk away without anyone getting hurt, and I was able to learn from my flubs...but I'm damn glad I was walkin' heavy that day!
 
Boy, I'm going to take the heat on this but
some people don't know what you are talking about.

The Tueller radius is relevant as once you let someone who is threatening within it,
you may not be able to draw and stop them
without appropriate training in such - which I'm sure you all have.

If I am within 21 feet and if you don't see a knife that means nothing. There are many different ways to hide an edged weapon.
I'm sure you all have taken edged weapons courses and watch tapes like "Surving Edged Weapons" or other police training tapes.

Also, you speak with no evidence except for your opinion.

I specifically mentioned three things:

1. An earlier verbal challenge - this is based on the opinions of nationally recognized experts and the literature on armed robbers. It is a strong warning and aids you legally.

2. Letting someone getting in back of you is bad.

3. A hammer down HP is not an optimal carry strategy. Not one I ever heard from anyone.
In fact, it is spoken against. Find a trainer that supports this mode.

That a strong, alert nonverbal demeanor worked is great. Such is also in the literature.
That doesn't mean that the incident doesn't have some teachable moments.

Several folk need to do a whole lot of force on force training to see how it can go bad.
That it didn't is a good thing.

I will also be outrageous by saying I've discussed this incident with some very tactically skill folk. We are of the same mind. One commented that a problem of some discussions is that folks get all dreamy eyed that a gun incident came out OK and the BGs backed down to the macho RKBA man. Cool, isn't it?

That doesn't mean that you weren't lucky.

Easily, the closer guy might have gotten to you, esp. the guy in back of you.

Or - seeing the gun threat - if feeling nasty, they could have called the cops and
said you threatened them. You have no defense to this as you have a gun, you did not warn them in any fashion that you felt a threat and you brandished. Maybe the cops would give you a break - who knows.

While I am on a rant, in another thread, I commented that yelling obscenities in a challenge was not recommended as it could look bad to a jury. Boy, did that threaten some macho sensibilities.

I will say again that very serious people have looked at these issues, run simulations, interviewed armed robberies, tested various tactics, etc. Without knowledge of such, some folks are expousing positions that are incorrect or dangerous.

If that is arrogant, tough. Proper tactical training would have avoided several terrible incidents. You need to be criticized after a FOF drill that goes wrong to known what real criticism is about. Someone needs to tell you that your choice of action caused you to die or an innocent to die and you are being sued or going to jail. You just move on as it is training.

For example, these are some real world cases where some simple knowledge would have prevented trouble:

The Louisana incident were the Japanese kid was shot by the homeowner.

The Saustrop case in TX where the CHL holder decided to follow the BG, shot him and was charged. There are others out there.

The more I think about it, I think that courses like the TX CHL course is a good thing and that someone who carries should have at least one real tactical course under their belt.

Should such be required for carry - didn't say that. But I would recommend it. It changes your world view.

By the way, such training and research as chastened me about several stupid things, I have done in the past.

Also, the strong but polite challenge has been used by me and it works. On evil teenagers and panhandlers, etc.

It even scared away a charging Chihuahua.

Now beat me up or try to get my point. Whatever.
 
Okay. I'm standing there and a potential goblin is walking up. He's about ten yards away. I make eye contact and say, "Can I help you?" in my best DMV-clerk voice. My hands are in plain sight. Since his goal is to get close enough to get my money I've just given him an excuse to come closer. Most Americans interact at about three feet of personal space so he can get plenty close without being rude or making a threatening gesture. It's perfectly normal. I initiated a conversation and an offer for help and he is taking me up on my invitation. "Can I help you" seems to lack something. "Don't come any closer." There I am not extending any sort of invitation but it is a provocative statement. I'm telling this individual that I do not wish to engage in any interactions whatsoever at what is considered polite distance. That one is better than "Can I help you." But since I am in a public park at a public bench I am hardly justified in issuing such a demand. He has as much right to the table as I do. By denying him access I am committing a hostile act and I am escalating without an imminent threat. What do your experts say about that? I know what Mas Ayoob told me. So now we have a verbal challenge that is just as bad as "Can I help you?"

One possible solution would have been for Chris to throw him a $20. Of course, the $20 was probably in Chris' wallet so getting it out would have been tactically stupid at that juncture. Chris, you may want to consider carrying a fool clip in the future in your weak side pocket. It's a five or a ten or something in a cheap money clip. You toss it to the person or persons who has accosted you and tell them to have a drink. I might work. If it does you are out $5. But since Chris didn't have it ready he did the correct thing and had his strong hand where it was needed most.

It is not brandishment if I put my hand on a my weapon in such a way that the attacker cannot see the weapon and I have not indicated that I am armed. If the gun is strong-side over the kidney then I am just rubbing my back. If it is in a pack then I am reaching for my wallet. It's done in a casual manner that is non-threatening to anyone in condition white. My wife got out of an ugly situation where she was being stalked by three young men by making eye contact and placing her hand on her pouch. She didn't say a word and the men were about 10 yards away from her. The silent challenge worked where a verbal challenge might not have. In any case, there was not enough time to draw the weapon if the verbal challenge failed and her hand was anywhere else. She did not display the gun and the unusual action of stopping and staring combined with the deliberate hand motion convinced them there were easier targets than this young mother with her child.

Glenn, if you have some effective challenges I honestly would like to hear what they are. I'm open to new ideas.

Chris, you have some food for thought here and some material for further mental preparedness. I will agree with the consensus on one thing. An HP35 was designed to be carried cocked and locked. Thumbing the hammer is one more action than you need under high stress and necessarily rapid reactions. Cylinder and Slide sells a conversion that safely raises the hammer on a High Power when the frame safety is engaged and lowers the hammer when the safety is disengaged. If you like the High Power but are uncomfortable with the thought of a cocked hammer this might be the thing for you. I once carried a Witness pistol with the hammer down over a live round. To do this I first had to manually lower the hammer over a live round. I had my second of two accidental (actually neglible) discharges this way. Sweaty fingers and all that. I can't imagine how it would be with shaking hands from an adrenaline rush, tunnel vision, and the desperation that an armed encounter could bring. The HP is a great gun but use it as it was intended to be used. Anything else opens the greater risk of being accused of an accidental discharge and the subsequent manslaugher charge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top