You draw a weapon on a man, but he still keeps coming...

Status
Not open for further replies.
"Just to be clear...do you mean you would shoot a warning shot again?...or you would shoot the intruder in the chest?"

Lik I said before, I'm happy no blood was shed and that would be my choice of outcome if th situation happened again. At 10 feet I'm sure I unecesarily exposed myself in firing a warning shot at someone briskly walking towards me. If thr guy would have rushed at me, too many variables. Yes. I would shoot on in th chest, no warning shot. I'm realy happy I fired that warning shot though.
 
If you are justified in drawing your weapon then you are justified in shooting it. It is agains't the law to brandish a weapon, if you are allowed to draw it you are allowed to shoot it. Retreat, back up, and side step, when the time comes you will know. Don't wait till its to late, bullets dont stop people, most times they dont even slow them down, chest and head shots get the job done!
 
"Did you recover that bullet which you shot?...or know exactly where it ended up?"

No.

It made a nice dent in my neighbor's patio fence wall, made of solid concrete, about chest height. The shot was fired in his patio. The intruders attempted to break in while three girls (teens) were in the house. They started screamming away so I jumped a fence. When I turned th corner the 2 intruders came my way @ 10 yrds. away. I drew and ordered them to stop. Both stopped with th command, one hesitated, and kept walking briskly towards me.
 
Where is the "threatening manner" aside from the walking toward me?
Click to expand...

I don't know about you but Ive never had to draw my gun on some one who wasn't acting in a threatening manner.

There's also the question of distance. If the guy is 50 feet away, I'd turn and run. If I hear him running after me I'd try to get cover or turn and confront, whatever was appropriate for the terrain and surroundings and remaining distance.
Click to expand...

If you trip and fall then what? I am willing to bet he can close that 50 feet faster than you can get back up. In which case it would be a ground fight.

2) The legal requirement to attempt retreat in NY state.
Click to expand...

Luckily your laws do not apply to very many people on this forum so they can be ignored.

I can absolutely, positively guarantee you that, if it was brought to prosecution, every attempt would be made to make it appear as though you shot an unarmed, completely innocent civilian who was doing nothing more than walking through a parking lot/park/wherever.
Today 01:00 PM
Click to expand...

Try as they might I absolutely, positively guarantee I won't get convicted.;)
 
One time my wife,Kids and I where on the way Home from a fun day with the kiddies and stopped off for a bit to eat to take home but there was No drive thru window of where we stopped. So I parked the car and stayed with the kids that where sleeping in the back seat while my wife went in side for take out.This was in the winter months so the car was running and Why I was day dreaming a man Out of nowhere a shady looking character knocked on the glass of my drivers door and it startled me.He then asked if I could spare some change and I replied sorry but No I can't and he said please and I said No once again then he stood there looking at me and I looked at Him and then the next thing I know he was trying to open to my drivers door but it locks automatic when put in reverse So the drivers door was stilled locked and my wife locked her side when she exit the car.I then pull my side arm which was a taurus Millenium at the time and tapped it on the glass window the dudes eyes got like a owls eyes and ran off.I still think this was a carjack attempt more then looking for some spare change and I am certainly glad the flash and tap of the glass thing worked.I couldn't help thinking to my self man I am glad I have a CCW permit and a sidearm to go with it.
 
Most jurisdictions in the U.S. require a person to "retreat to the wall" or similar concept before deadly action is taken.

In my jurisdiction a person is entittled to "stand his ground". If a person invades your ground, it becomes a threat to you. For those wondring, its Puerto Rico.
 
The OP also suggests that he is behaving in a threatening manner so that whole skit you just wrote is kind of silly.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could relate for the rest of us how you came to conclusion that you may shoot someone because he is "behaving in a threatening manner".

Luckily your [New York] laws do not apply to very many people on this forum so they can be ignored.
Click to expand...

Actually, in most states, one does have a duty to retreat, unless one is in his home or automobile, and in some states, even then. There is no duty to retreat in Indiana.

Try as they might I absolutely, positively guarantee I won't get convicted.
Click to expand...

Famous last words, as they say, and the belief of a lot of people who are serving or who have served time and forever forfeited their right to own a gun.

You will have shot a person. That will not be in question. To avoid conviction for some type of murder, you will have to produce evidence that you reasonably believed that your action was necessary to protect your self from serious injury.

The jurors will judge what is reasonable and what was necessary. Your testimony, which will be subject to cross examination that could render it ineffective, may be of insufficient help.

Think about it. If the courts relied solely on the shooter's testimony, there would be very few convictions for murder--everyone would claim self defense. A lot of people do, but many do not prevail.

Keep in mind there is pretty good chance that the person will survive and testify against you. Don't assume that in court he will be regarded as the "bad guy." And whether he lives or dies, don't assume that you will be regarded as the "good guy."

It will come down to how well your testimony matches the forensic evidence and any testimony of others, who may well not have noticed what was going on until they heard the sound of your shots. And if someone did, what will they remember? In most places in the country, drawing a gun on someone who is not posing an imminent danger is a crime. How do you think this will be taken: "I saw a man pointing a gun at another man; then he fired and the man went down"?

I suggest that you bookmark and study this:

http://www.useofforce.us/

Also this, which goes into the aftermath and what you will face.

http://www.teddytactical.com/archive/MonthlyStudy/2006/02_StudyDay.htm

Your defense attorney may have studied this, which you should also read:

http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/01c1e7698280d20385256d0b00789923/f587d7d10c34fff2852572b90069bc3c?OpenDocument&Click=

It would be a very worth while investment to consult with an experienced trial attorney in your area.

Let's hope you never get into such a situation. How do you think your posts on this will sound to a DA, grand jury, or jury?
 
Survivor of open heart surgery .I guessed i feared for my life your HONOR.and ladies and gentlemen of the jury.;)
 
Just checked back in here and read all these responses. Thanks to all who participated.

I purposely made the post very generic so as to keep the situation flexible for discussion.

After thinking about it for a day, here is what I would do. This is just my opinion and Im not saying this is what you should do, its what I would do...

1) Do not turn away or remove your eyes from the target.

2) Remain in motion with the purpose of placing distance between you and the target. Side-step as well as back/forth in a quick manner keeping a minimal of 25 feet distance. Be quick on your feet and avoid a stance.

3) Keep shouting commands at the target in a loud firm voice. Yell at the target to get down or you will fire. Keep shouting the commands as many times as it takes...

4) If the target is obviously unarmed and starts running at me, then I would fire at the target, but in a manner to slow its speed rather then to kill. I would fire at the legs or a lower extremity below the heart. I would consider utilizing a warning shot into the ground or large tree. This is controversial in this forum, I know...most advocate always firing center mass and never using warning shots. I know the ability of my bullets and would consider where I was before firing a warning shot. If I was in a forest, then a shot into soft ground by a tree would certainly be low risk.

5) Depending upon the situation, there would be different reactions. For example, if the man has a bloody knife in his hand standing over a body then I wouldnt attempt so much at retreating. I would definately back away and give commands, but I wouldnt totally retreat from the situation. I feel I have a moral obligation in this regard and it wouldnt be the right thing to do in letting him go.

If I drew my weapon on someone unarmed and prowling in my backyard at 3am while I was trying to get into my house(lets say I just pulled up after a long cross country trip), then I would definately retreat and exercise more restraint. I only have a suspicion that the man is doing wrong, but no actual evidence.

No matter what the law might state, Im going to do what common sense tells me to do and let the attornies figure it out later. For example, Im not certain its lawful to draw a weapon on a strange man in the backyard at 3am, but thats what I would do to protect myself.

The level of restraint and retreat would depend upon the situation. If I had witnessed the man perform a violent act, then he is not going to be let go. If it was a non-violent crime, then I would be more apt for a total retreat. If there was no crime and just suspicion, then I would definately attempt a total retreat.
 
Does he look anything like this? :D
CemeteryZombie.jpg
 
The jails are also full of people who were either innocent or where the decision of guilt was very controversial.

When the police make their decision to arrest you, then they usually stand by that decision to the bitter end. The prosecutor will stand by the officer's decision. The judge and jury will look down at you and only see a guy in handcuffs that the officer, who can do no wrong, arrested.

The best you can do in any situation is to make every attempt to avoid it in the first place. However, if a strange man rushes into my home, is in my yard or a violent situation presents itself, then Im not going to be thinking about the law. I will do what I think is right to protect myself or others.

For example, in some states you have to make an attempt to flee from your home before you can use lethal force. However, if some guy invades my house then I will probably be using lethal force and I wont be retreating no matter what the law might say.
 
I'm not an expert in this field nor do I pass myself off as one of the most knowledgeable members on this board. But I'll put in my two hay-pennies worth based on what you provided:

4) If the target is obviously unarmed and starts running at me, then I would fire at the target, but in a manner to slow its speed rather then to kill. I would fire at the legs or a lower extremity below the heart. I would consider utilizing a warning shot into the ground or large tree. This is controversial in this forum, I know...most advocate always firing center mass and never using warning shots. I know the ability of my bullets and would consider where I was before firing a warning shot. If I was in a forest, then a shot into soft ground by a tree would certainly be low risk.
Click to expand...

Since you didn't answer my question, I'm going to assume that you have the gun pointed at the subject rather than at low-ready. If the subject never was truly a threat to your life, you are the assailant, not him. The simple statement of "I felt my life as in imminent danger" just won't cut it. This is extremely subjective to people that aren't educated on diciphering the clues with a clear head.

If you think it's OK to fire your gun to just slow down the approach, you're putting your behind in the sling from the moment you touch off that round. If you really think you know your bullets and where they will go upon ricochets, then you might as well change your handle to Revolver Ocelot. Your statement is wrong on so many levels. If you don't see this, I really don't think I have the ability to articulate my point without further confusion. I think this should be left to someone else that's more qualified to explain.

And to top it off, you're ready and willing to shoot an unarmed person without considering other options? Responsible gunownership lies more heavily when NOT to shoot, rather than when TO shoot.
 
When to FIRE

Shout GO AWAY, three times, with pistol drawn, then do the Mosambique Drill two to the body and one to the head, repeat if necessary. I still have more rounds to do this one more time...
 
However, if a strange man rushes into my home, is in my yard or a violent situation presents itself, then Im not going to be thinking about the law.
Click to expand...
I would suggest that is a terrrible tactic. You need to both know the law in your state regarding use of force and you need to think about that law when deciding to use force. If you don't think about the law, the shooting and the aftermath, you are planning to fail, IMO. What good does it do to survive an encounter if you lose your home and your family because you spend the rest of your life locked away from them?
 
Perhaps you could relate for the rest of us how you came to conclusion that you may shoot someone because he is "behaving in a threatening manner".
Click to expand...

If someone threatened you life you wouldn't consider shooting them? That's sad and unfortunate for people who may rely on you for protection.
 
The jails have hundreds, if not thousands, of people in them that felt that same way!
Click to expand...

They felt that way because they were wrong. Im not.

The jails are also full of people who were either innocent or where the decision of guilt was very controversial.
Click to expand...

+1. Thank You!

David Armstrong said:
I would suggest that is a terrrible tactic.
Click to expand...

I disagree. i would rather take my chances going to prison and guarantee my survival than risk my or my family's life.
 
I wish to apologize to the forum. I posted a reply that tried to be humorous about the subject, but it fell terribley flat. That reply was deleted by the administration. I was wrong in trying to inject such humor into such a serious discussion..again forgive me..it will not happen again...
 
If someone threatened you life you wouldn't consider shooting them? That's sad and unfortunate for people who may rely on you for protection.
Click to expand...

You have obviously not studied any of the links I've posted.

NO, I WOULD NOT (shoot someone because he is "behaving in a threatening manner)"! I would remain very alert, but I would not shoot unless and until (1) I had reason to believe that that someone had the ability and opportunity to seriously injure me or mine, (2) I had reason to believe that we were in imminent danger of serious bodily harm, and (3) it appeared to me that I had no reasonable alternative.

To do otherwise would constitute murder.

That's the law, and it has been for many centuries.

Actually, I would have been unlikely to draw under the circumstances described. Unlawful act, for a citizen, generally, unless there was imminent danger. Brandishing, assault, illegal use of a firearm ,depending on the state code....

They felt that way [that they would not be convicted] because they were wrong. Im not.
Click to expand...

Your basis for that brave assumption?

You just might be acquitted, or have your conviction overturned upon appeal under the circumstances described, even after having given the state a basis for establishing mens rea by your cavalier posts. I very seriously doubt it, however.

But let's assume for a moment that that will happen. While you are consulting with an experienced criminal trial attorney in advance, and I strongly recommend that you do so, you might ask him what he thinks the ordeal might cost you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top