Got my gun grabbed today...

[TailBlazer]

What do you all think a cop would do if this said person went to him and tried to grab his gun? To me that is a threat and I will not be disarmed and shot with my own gun. A simple hey cover that up would of been sufficient.

That is not the wrong reaction, depending on how the guy approached you. If he comes up behind you and pulls at your gun. Your reaction may be to pull it. It does not really matter if it is an employee or not. Still, can you really tell if there is a disability with a person in the matter of seconds you turn around? At that point, it seems someone could easily think "Someone is trying to disarm me. I need to take action".

 

[jbombelli]

Since I wasn't there I can't say for sure what I would have done. But here's my first impulse based on what I've practiced in the event someone that isn't wearing a uniform and badge tries to grab my handgun:

Trap his hand on my gun with my own hand on top of his, pull my blackjack with my other hand and whang him in the jaw.

A wired-together jaw and several months on a liquid diet does wonders for teaching lessons about what not to do.

 

[bwframe]

Wow. Isn't this a proud thread for INGO? So many members talking of harming a physically, possibly mentally challenged person.

Maybe all those tough guys should wear their guns on the outside just to show everyone how bad ass they really are.

Oh, that's what we're talking about, HUH. When you cannot defend the lethal tool that you openly advertise, hmm. Wonder who is really at fault here?

 

[goinggreyfast]

Since I wasn't there I can't say for sure what I would have done. But here's my first impulse based on what I've practiced in the event someone that isn't wearing a uniform and badge tries to grab my handgun:

Trap his hand on my gun with my own hand on top of his, pull my blackjack with my other hand and whang him in the jaw.

A wired-together jaw and several months on a liquid diet does wonders for teaching lessons about what not to do.

According to the OP, this didn't happen without at least a few seconds warning and the clerk didn't sneak up behind him. It's also been stated this this fella is clearly "socially challenged." I don't know, I guess I'm just a little less violent than some of ya'll. Breaking this guys jaw??? Come on.

...I was walking out with my two friends, and I hear "SIR! SIR!" behind me. I see it's him, and he's waving me over.

I walk half the way, and he walks over to me saying "Look, just lift your shirt and cover up the gun." as he's saying this, he grabs my shirt with his right hand and the back of my gun with his left.

 

[Hayseed_40]

Dude, you win the thread.

Seriously.

No, no, no! Do not validate him...

 

[TailBlazer]

Even still, this is not something to take lightly. The reason you should not grab at someone's firearm like that is because it can be seen as a threat. If it is seen as a threat, people can get hurt. This is not a case of someone beating someone with a disability. This is someone making a poor choice, and putting himself and others in danger. This also puts the person carrying in danger. If you do not react to someone trying to grab your firearm, what do you do when you're looking down the barrel of it. You can say all you want about how this guy is harmless, and how he is disabled in some way. But the reality of it is, a stranger would likely not have time to react to that. If a person does not have enough mind presence to not grab at a gun like that, he needs to be supervised. It is likely that he will make other mistakes that can cause a lawsuit, or other serious situations.

 

[TailBlazer]

According to the OP, this didn't happen without at least a few seconds warning and the clerk didn't sneak up behind him. It's also been stated this this fella is clearly "socially challenged." I don't know, I guess I'm just a little less violent than some of ya'll. Breaking this guys jaw??? Come on.

This is not about beating someone to look like a "bad ass" this is about protecting yourself. In that kind of situation, you have to make sure this guy is not going to harm you. Obviously if you know the person, or have interacted with this person before your response will be quite different. Most of the posts are from a point of view of never knowing anything about the person. For that point of view it is a some guy grabbing my gun, what is his intent kind of question. If you wait to see what someone who is pulling your gun out is going to do with it, you may be shot.

 

[jbombelli]

According to the OP, this didn't happen without at least a few seconds warning and the clerk didn't sneak up behind him. It's also been stated this this fella is clearly "socially challenged." I don't know, I guess I'm just a little less violent than some of ya'll. Breaking this guys jaw??? Come on.

Again, since I wasn't there I can't be sure how it would have played out if it was me.

I don't know the guy, I've never met or seen him, and can't be sure how he would have come across to me at that moment.

What I posted is simply what I've practiced for this sort of scenario.

 

[avengedXT]

All billy badarsness aside, how does one not immediately assume a threat there and do their best to break from the grab and assess the situation.

+1 for you sir. I question the exact same. Luckily I get no strange looks when I open carry; and nobody has yet tried to lay a finger on my firearm. I would by no means fire upon somebody unless a threat was foreseeable, therefore I agree with another INGO'er (believe it was GoingGreyFast) in questioning - why do some even assume the possibility that just at the tilt of a hat you can shoot somebody?

I may love my guns, but I don't want to have to use them.

 

[goinggreyfast]

... If a person does not have enough mind presence to not grab at a gun like that, he needs to be supervised. It is likely that he will make other mistakes that can cause a lawsuit, or other serious situations.

And that's why, IMHO, the OP should have gone directly to the store manager and addressed the issue.

Again, since I wasn't there I can't be sure how it would have played out if it was me.

I don't know the guy, I've never met or seen him, and can't be sure how he would have come across to me at that moment.

What I posted is simply what I've practiced for this sort of scenario.

Understood.

 

[stephen87]

It is now obvious that some of the reject Mall Ninja's have been relocated to Wally World.....wonderful.

So now we have the Mall Ninjas and Wally World Warriors? OP, was it the County Line Road Walmart? I don't think I've seen him yet.

 

[canav844]

No, that's a battery.

Correct.

IC 35-42-2-1
Battery
Sec. 1. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally touches another person in a rude, insolent, or angry manner commits battery, a Class B misdemeanor. However, the offense is:
(1) a Class A misdemeanor if:
(A) it results in bodily injury to any other person;
(B) it is committed against a law enforcement officer or against a person summoned and directed by the officer while the officer is engaged in the execution of the officer's official duty;
(C) it is committed against an employee of a penal facility or a juvenile detention facility (as defined in IC 31-9-2-71) while the employee is engaged in the execution of the employee's official duty;
(D) it is committed against a firefighter (as defined in IC 9-18-34-1) while the firefighter is engaged in the execution of the firefighter's official duty;
(E) it is committed against a community policing volunteer: (i) while the volunteer is performing the duties described in IC 35-41-1-4.7; or
(ii) because the person is a community policing volunteer; or
(F) it is committed against the state chemist or the state chemist's agent while the state chemist or the state chemist's agent is performing a duty under IC 15-16-5;
(2) a Class D felony if it results in bodily injury to:
(A) a law enforcement officer or a person summoned and directed by a law enforcement officer while the officer is engaged in the execution of the officer's official duty;
(B) a person less than fourteen (14) years of age and is committed by a person at least eighteen (18) years of age;
(C) a person of any age who has a mental or physical disability and is committed by a person having the care of the person with a mental or physical disability, whether the care is assumed voluntarily or because of a legal obligation;
(D) the other person and the person who commits the battery was previously convicted of a battery in which the victim was the other person;
(E) an endangered adult (as defined in IC 12-10-3-2);
(F) an employee of the department of correction while the employee is engaged in the execution of the employee's official duty;
(G) an employee of a school corporation while the employee is engaged in the execution of the employee's official duty;
(H) a correctional professional while the correctional professional is engaged in the execution of the correctional professional's official duty;
(I) a person who is a health care provider (as defined in IC 16-18-2-163) while the health care provider is engaged in the execution of the health care provider's official duty;
(J) an employee of a penal facility or a juvenile detention facility (as defined in IC 31-9-2-71) while the employee is engaged in the execution of the employee's official duty;
(K) a firefighter (as defined in IC 9-18-34-1) while the firefighter is engaged in the execution of the firefighter's official duty;
(L) a community policing volunteer:
(i) while the volunteer is performing the duties described in IC 35-41-1-4.7; or
(ii) because the person is a community policing volunteer;
(M) a family or household member (as defined in IC 35-41-1-10.6) if the person who committed the offense:
(i) is at least eighteen (18) years of age; and
(ii) committed the offense in the physical presence of a child less than sixteen (16) years of age, knowing that the child was present and might be able to see or hear the offense; or
(N) a department of child services employee while the employee is engaged in the execution of the employee's official duty;
(3) a Class C felony if it results in serious bodily injury to any other person or if it is committed by means of a deadly weapon;
(4) a Class B felony if it results in serious bodily injury to a person less than fourteen (14) years of age and is committed by a person at least eighteen (18) years of age;
(5) a Class A felony if it results in the death of a person less than fourteen (14) years of age and is committed by a person at least eighteen (18) years of age;
(6) a Class C felony if it results in serious bodily injury to an endangered adult (as defined in IC 12-10-3-2);
(7) a Class B felony if it results in the death of an endangered adult (as defined in IC 12-10-3-2); and
(8) a Class C felony if it results in bodily injury to a pregnant woman and the person knew the woman was pregnant.
(b) For purposes of this section:
(1) "law enforcement officer" includes an alcoholic beverage enforcement officer; and
(2) "correctional professional" means a:
(A) probation officer;
(B) parole officer;
(C) community corrections worker; or
(D) home detention officer.

IC 35-42-2-2
Criminal recklessness; element of hazing; liability barred for good faith report or judicial participation
Sec. 2. (a) As used in this section, "hazing" means forcing or requiring another person:
(1) with or without the consent of the other person; and
(2) as a condition of association with a group or organization;
to perform an act that creates a substantial risk of bodily injury.
(b) A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally performs:
(1) an act that creates a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person; or
(2) hazing;
commits criminal recklessness. Except as provided in subsection (c), criminal recklessness is a Class B misdemeanor.
(c) The offense of criminal recklessness as defined in subsection (b) is:
(1) a Class A misdemeanor if the conduct includes the use of a vehicle;
(2) a Class D felony if:
(A) it is committed while armed with a deadly weapon; or
(B) the person committed aggressive driving (as defined in IC 9-21-8-55) that results in serious bodily injury to another person; or
(3) a Class C felony if:
(A) it is committed by shooting a firearm into an inhabited dwelling or other building or place where people are likely to gather; or
(B) the person committed aggressive driving (as defined in IC 9-21-8-55) that results in the death of another person.
(d) A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally:
(1) inflicts serious bodily injury on another person; or
(2) performs hazing that results in serious bodily injury to a person;
commits criminal recklessness, a Class D felony. However, the offense is a Class C felony if committed by means of a deadly weapon.
(e) A person, other than a person who has committed an offense under this section or a delinquent act that would be an offense under this section if the violator was an adult, who:
(1) makes a report of hazing in good faith;
(2) participates in good faith in a judicial proceeding resulting from a report of hazing;
(3) employs a reporting or participating person described in subdivision (1) or (2); or
(4) supervises a reporting or participating person described in subdivision (1) or (2);
is not liable for civil damages or criminal penalties that might otherwise be imposed because of the report or participation.
(f) A person described in subsection (e)(1) or (e)(2) is presumed to act in good faith.
(g) A person described in subsection (e)(1) or (e)(2) may not be treated as acting in bad faith solely because the person did not have probable cause to believe that a person committed:
(1) an offense under this section; or
(2) a delinquent act that would be an offense under this section if the offender was an adult.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.2. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.31; Acts 1981, P.L.300, SEC.1; P.L.323-1987, SEC.1; P.L.216-1996, SEC.17; P.L.1-2003, SEC.94; P.L.75-2006, SEC.3.

IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
only if that force is justified under subsection (a).
(d) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person and does not have a duty to retreat if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or stop the other person from hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight. For purposes of this subsection, an aircraft is considered to be in flight while the aircraft is:
(1) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the doors of the aircraft are closed for takeoff; and (B) until the aircraft takes off;
(2) in the airspace above Indiana; or
(3) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the aircraft lands; and
(B) before the doors of the aircraft are opened after landing.
(e) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c), a person is not justified in using force if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (d), a person is not justified in using force if the person:
(1) is committing, or is escaping after the commission of, a crime;
(2) provokes unlawful action by another person, with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) continues to combat another person after the other person withdraws from the encounter and communicates the other person's intent to stop hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.8; Acts 1979, P.L.297, SEC.1; P.L.59-2002, SEC.1; P.L.189-2006, SEC.1.

Based solely on the OPs account a crime took place, with the OP being the victim. However from what I can find in the IC codes, the use of deadly force when you have not been injured is difficult to justify for your average non first responder. And I think discussion raises for me after reading the arm chair quarter backing responses is what sort of legal precedent is set (if any) in Indiana for the average non LEO non 1st responder LTCH holder. Because lets face regardless of how stupid the actions of the WalMart employee were, if a LTCH holder uses force lethal or not, and it's not shown to be justified by the police, the media is going to eat that up and attempt to crucify anyone that ever thought about owning a gun; especially when it involved the perception of disparity of the force in physical size and/or mental capacity. And when it comes to the court of public opinion, that can hurt the rest of us when it comes time to protect our rights.

 

[Hammerhead]

I don't give a flying fornication how short someone is if they tried to grab my sidearm. My first reaction is to defend myself from some psycho attempting to do who knows what.

Assessing the person for defense, my first reaction would have been a knee to whatever happened to be closest (head, chest, groin) and attempting to step back enough to draw down on them. Granted this is a reactionary statement to what I believe I would do. Luckily I've never had to deploy this tactic.

I can't say whether the OPs reaction was the wrong one or not. I would probably be shocked by this too.

Let me post this again, for those of you who're taking it out of context. I NEVER said that I would pound this specific individual into paste. Especially because in this specific situation, I happen to be three times the guy's size.

Throwing a knee is a defensive tactic generally meant to swivel the body, in this case my left knee turning the body to the right, pulling my sidearm out of reach and placing my strong side away from the attacker (or whomever) allowing for an unencumbered draw stroke. I then stated that I would be backing away, putting distance between myself and the person grabbing me. While I have "no duty to retreat," I don't see this as a retreat, but a precaution and a removal from physical contact. Should the person advance again, I'm now set up for a response.

Notice I also said, "Assessing the person for defense..." This means that I'm not just going to go all Hulk Smash like some of you seem to be inferring. Is this person truly attempting to get my gun to do me or someone harm, or are they doing what the OP said and just trying to awkwardly do what they think is right.

Another tactic mentioned several times is wrist or arm locks. Grabbing a person's wrist or arm as they attempt grabbing at your sidearm is also a defensive tactic, one employed by police and self defense training. It's not about breaking bones or throwing someone to the ground. It's about causing a mild amount of pain or discomfort while moving the attacker away from their target, and possibly maneuvering their body in a different direction or into a position that you can then speak to them (hopefully) about not continuing their attack.

Yes, should these defensive maneuvers not work, or not stop the attack, stronger tactics should be employed.

I love how a whole bunch of people seem to jump on the "you're all Chuck Norris going to kill your attacker" when I never said that, and most of the people explaining their defensive tactics weren't saying to stomp the guy. Sometimes if you're defending yourself, you or your attacker might get hurt. Hopefully you're willing to make your attacker hurt more than you, even if it's minor.

 

[Boost Lee]

Only because I have confirmation on the Wal-mart employee he's referring to, Yes - It's the location off of Emerson Ave/County Line Rd.

Regarding the argument of whether or not someone would be rightful to aggressively react to this situation...
I don't like to play Devil's advocate often but I have to be blunt in saying that, IF I were ever to feel that I'm in imminent threat for my life,
(ie. said employee PULLED my gun from my holster), I don't care if the acting person is a 14 year old male, a mentally challenged adult or a 90lb elderly lady,
I'm going to react in a way that assures me that I'm safe and others in danger around me are unharmed.

Back to reality, What the Wal-mart employee did was absolutely out of conduct; no question... But NOT worthy of causing a scene or worse.

I hope 85% of this threads' post was meant to be in purple...

 

[iChokePeople]

I love how a whole bunch of people seem to jump on the "you're all Chuck Norris going to kill your attacker" when I never said that, and most of the people explaining their defensive tactics weren't saying to stomp the guy. Sometimes if you're defending yourself, you or your attacker might get hurt. Hopefully you're willing to make your attacker hurt more than you, even if it's minor.

Maybe it's the part where you said, "to draw down on him" that threw us.

 

[iChokePeople]

Regarding the argument of whether or not someone would be rightful to aggressively react to this situation...
I don't like to play Devil's advocate often but I have to be blunt in saying that, IF I were ever to feel that I'm in imminent threat for my life,
(ie. said employee PULLED my gun from my holster), I don't care if the acting person is a 14 year old male, a mentally challenged adult or a 90lb elderly lady,
I'm going to react in a way that assures me that I'm safe and others in danger around me are unharmed.

Yes, but you better be able to convince a prosecutor or jury that this 90 lb elderly lady, etc, gave you a reasonable fear for your life. Being a paranoid gun nut who allowed someone with the challenges described here to touch his gun and then freaked would not automatically qualify.

Back to reality, What the Wal-mart employee did was absolutely out of conduct; no question... But NOT worthy of causing a scene or worse.

I hope 85% of this threads' post was meant to be in purple...

Totally agree with that part.

 

[Hammerhead]

Perhaps I could have added "if required" to that, but you wouldn't be prepared to draw in this situation? Someone trying to grab or pull your gun for any reason and you don't feel threatened?

But again, I did say "Assessing for defense..." Backing up enough to draw down does not mean that I would.

 

[bwframe]

How do you let someone get close enough to grab your gun?

 

[iChokePeople]

Perhaps I could have added "if required" to that, but you wouldn't be prepared to draw in this situation? Someone trying to grab or pull your gun for any reason and you don't feel threatened?

But again, I did say "Assessing for defense..." Backing up enough to draw down does not mean that I would.

I'll give you that. And what I would do is entirely dependent on the situation. Because I haven't seen the man in question, I can only go on the picture I've drawn in my head from the descriptions here. From that mental picture, I just can't fathom considering him a threat worthy of any more than grabbing the offending gun-grabbing hand, not in some wrist lock or with the intent to take him down, but just putting my hand on his to keep the gun firmly in the holster, peacefully getting separation, and discussing the issue with him and his supervisor/manager. If he has social issues, he really does need to be educated and coached that what he did is inappropriate and dangerous, but not the way some here have described it. Now if I were a 90 year old woman for whom this guy constituted a valid threat, that would be different. I'm old and feeble, but not old and feeble enough to feel threatened by the guy in the image I've drawn in my head of this man.

 

[Richwon4]

Hands on me for any reason, I would file a complaint. Was it all the way concealed, how did he know you had a firearm?