I drew my weapon, was it the right thing to do

[ocsdor]

Actually, the threat of force is the same as using force. And it works both ways. If they are within striking distance and it's 3v1 and are acting aggressively and threating bodily harm you are within your rights to pull your firearm. If they are actually charging you and you tell them to stop (SCREAM IT) and they refuse, then you can shoot.

I really need to get my Indiana Handgun Law book out and scan some pages for you all. If you don't have the book, buy it. It'll be the best book investment you'll ever make. If you live in Indiana of course.

I hope, for your sake, that you never have to test this theory of yours. I tried a vaguely similar act that you described, except I was on my own property, and I almost went to jail just for putting my hand on my holstered firearm.

Also, thanks for the reps. They are much appreciated.

 

[dburkhead]

I hope, for your sake, that you never have to test this theory of yours. I tried a vaguely similar act that you described, except I was on my own property, and I almost went to jail just for putting my hand on my holstered firearm.

Also, thanks for the reps. They are much appreciated.

"Almost went to jail" as in "wasn't arrested"? I've been in the case where police officers had threatened arrest and other dire consequences when they had nothing (I knew they had nothing because I hadn't done anything even close to what I was being accused of. Oh, and that's not a criticism--they were just doing their job trying to rattle me into an admission which would help them put a criminal--had I actually been one--away.) I've also run into the attitude of "I'll do a little extra paperwork for a felony arrest."

I note that uptopic a taser was mentioned From page 99-100 of Bryan Ciyou's "Indiana Handgun Law" (Mr. Ciyou is an attorney, practicing in Indiana, with significant experience in handgun law and self-defense type cases):

What is a deadly weapon?

A handgun or longgun is a "firearm" that falls within the statutory definition of a "deadly weapon". Precisely, a "deadly weapon" means any of the following:

• Loaded or unloaded firearm
• Destructive device
• Weapon
• Device
• Taser
• Electronic stun gun.

Additionally, this statutory term encompasses any equipment, chemical substance, or other material that in the manner it is used, or could ordinarily be used, or is intended to be used, is readily capable of causing "serious bodily injury."

From page 101:

What is Serious Bodily Injury?
"Serious bodily injury" is bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes serious permanent disfigurement, unconsciousness, extreme pain, permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member or organ, or the loss of a fetus.

One can argue that "pepper spray" qualifies as "extreme pain," but it's a not-impossible outcome. This is one of the reasons that, from a legal perspective, I'm skeptical about "lesser" weapons than the firearm. Not saying having more choices in one's arsenal isn't a good idea, just don't count on it getting one out of any charges stemming from "excessive force."

Now, a bit farther along, Mr. Ciyou goes into when deadly force may be used. There are three criteria:

- The person is in a place he had a right to be. (If you're breaking and entering, you can't claim self defense.)
- The person did not provoke or willingly participate in the violence.
- The person had a reasonable fear or apprehension of bodily harm.

You need all three of those.

The latter part--reasonable fear or apprehension of bodily harm, is where questions usually arise. Things like "disparity of force" (multiples against one, that sort of thing), whether the attacker(s), are armed, whether they've actually made threats agaisnt your life, that sort of thing, all come into the picture.

The thing is the threat doesn't have to be "real" in an objective sense. If someone, after shouting long harangues at you, while you've been trying to back out of the situation or otherwise difuse it screams, "I'm gonna cut you..." and reaches for his pocket, well, he might be going for a comb, but if you wait to be sure it will probably be too late--the winner of a knife fight goes to the hospital...if he's lucky.

Ideally, we'd like to always have perfect knowledge of when an attack is a "real" threat, or just bluster, but, sadly, the world isn't built that way. I try very hard to be aware of situations, to avoid confrontations (at least physical ones), and to stay out of situations where I might have to make a "him or me" decision. But it's not a perfect world and I can't guarantee any of that.

In the OP's case, I think he did a pretty good job. About the one thing I might have done differently is that I usually have my keys in my hand before I walk to the car. In fact, I usually just keep them in my hand while walking around the store. And I might well have handled the scene at the car itself differently, because of that different arrangement to begin with. (I almost never have the windows down, so that's a difference right there.)

Still, the OP was--

1) approached by two individuals
2) individuals came from an unusual location (by the dumpster) where one doesn't expect folk to just be "hanging around")
3) when he continued toward his car after one of them called to him (clearly demonstrating that he was not interested in talking to them), they continued to press the issue.
4) A third individual, comes from a separate location and moves in in coordination with the other two.
5) they spread out and surrounded him. I don't know the layout of the place, but since most people are highly reluctant (and rightfully so) to run over people, could this have been an actual attempt to block him in? i.e. was he parked so that he would have had to drive forward to leave the space?
6) One of them physically grabbed his car.

Those elements, taken together, strike me as reasonable apprehension that the three were up to no good. And the force disparity--three against one--makes that a reasonable fear of serious bodily injury. While two of them were on opposite sides of the car, how long would it really have taken for them to get over or around it to the driver's side?

 

[SavageEagle]

Thanks David. You saved me some digging for my power cord for my scanner. I guess I could have typed it all out so reps for you for doing so.

ocsdor, I hope you understand what this Lawyer wrote. It comes from case law proven in court time and time again. My willingness (or lack thereof) to use my pistol is directly derived from that book, Massad Ayoob's books, and other's experiances posted here and elsewhere. I didn't come to my decision lightly and I'm making sure I'm covering my butt if (God Forbid) I ever have to use, or threaten to use, my sidearm.

The police can badger me all they want, the most they will get out of me is "I would like to be checked out by the paramedics, and by the way, could you please contact my family so they can contact my lawyer. Oh, and please don't scratch up my Baby Eagle please. Thank you."

Ok, maybe not the part about scratching up my gun, but I know I'd be thinking it!

 

[agentl074]

I don't know if ya'll are familiar with the FLETC use of force model but it is a good reference.

Subject:

1. Compliant (blue) —subject is cooperative— use verbal commands: body language, behavioral assessment

2. Passive resistant (green) —refuses to obey—contact controls: hand rotation, wrist lock, verbal manipulation techniques (deescalating communication)

3. Active resistant (yellow) —pushes officer away—compliance techniques: OC spray, baton non striking, tazer

4. Assaultive, bodily harm (orange)—verbally threatens greater force and physically assaults officer—defensive tactics: baton striking, escape techniques, weapon retention, impact weapons and all less lethal options

5. Assaultive, serious bodily harm (red) deadly force: Firearms and/or all other tools

 

[SavageEagle]

I don't know if ya'll are familiar with the FLETC use of force model but it is a good reference.

Subject:

1. Compliant (blue) use verbal commands

2. Passive resistant (green) contact controls

3. Active resistant (yellow) compliance techniques: OC, baton non striking, tazer

4. Assaultive, bodily harm (orange) defensive tactics: baton striking

5. Assaultive, serious bodily harm (red) deadly force

Could you expand on this a little further? Contact Controls? etc?

 

[Joe Williams]

I don't know if ya'll are familiar with the FLETC use of force model but it is a good reference.

Subject:

1. Compliant (blue) use verbal commands

2. Passive resistant (green) contact controls

3. Active resistant (yellow) compliance techniques: OC, baton non striking, tazer

4. Assaultive, bodily harm (orange) defensive tactics: baton striking

5. Assaultive, serious bodily harm (red) deadly force

Bet that's not the use of force escalation they teach to cops who are by themselves, outnumbered 3-1, and who can't call for backup.

 

[agentl074]

There ya go... revised.

 

[agentl074]

Bet that's not the use of force escalation they teach to cops who are by themselves, outnumbered 3-1, and who can't call for backup.

True. We always had a partner and plenty of back up.

 

[dburkhead]

True. We always had a partner and plenty of back up.

Also, for non-LEO's, the options you described for 3-5 count as Deadly Force (see quotes from Ciyou's book uptopic).

I'm not sure that what LEO's are taught and are able to do necessarily connect up much with what non-LEO's need to, and can legally, do.

 

[agentl074]

Also, for non-LEO's, the options you described for 3-5 count as Deadly Force (see quotes from Ciyou's book uptopic).

I'm not sure that what LEO's are taught and are able to do necessarily connect up much with what non-LEO's need to, and can legally, do.

It is simply a use of force continuum which provides a guideline for how to respond to a rapidly escalating and deescalating situation. You are correct about OC, tazers etc. being less lethal devices.... They do have their place and when used in the correct level, they are perfectly legal.

Now obviously the use of force model is not for citizens' defense... but it could be modified to work as a defensive matrix if you remove #2 and #3,(keeping the verbal deescalation technique) and using less lethal tools as a option to be exhausted before using lethal force.

 

[SavageEagle]

There ya go... revised.

appreciate that!

 

[dburkhead]

It is simply a use of force continuum which provides a guideline for how to respond to a rapidly escalating and deescalating situation. You are correct about OC, tazers etc. being less lethal devices.... They do have their place and when used in the correct level, they are perfectly legal.

Now obviously the use of force model is not for citizens' defense... but it could be modified to work as a defensive matrix if you remove #2 and #3,(keeping the verbal deescalation technique) and using less lethal tools as a option to be exhausted before using lethal force.

The problem is that, as a non-LEO, one can be charged with using "deadly weapons" for these "less lethal" devices (see the Ciyou cites above--tazer is specifically listed in "deadly weapons" and pretty much everything I've ever seen lists a club as one) unless the situation calls for deadly force. So while the intermediate steps are useful to have in one's toolbox I remain skeptical that they are any real legal protection for situations where use of deadly force is not legally authorized for non-LEO's.

 

[Son of Liberty]

In the end the point of personal protection is to protect your person. That's what he did, if your gut tells you somethings wrong it probably is. The goal in any situation is to get out of it with the least amount of damage done to yourself or property; which includes the prevention of the potential assualt. That being said the 3 guys being mexican didn't have anything to do with your assumption of danger did it? I only ask cause you included their race in the orginal post. Would you have said 3 white guys if they were? Or 3 guys.

 

[agentl074]

appreciate that!

No problem

 

[agentl074]

The problem is that, as a non-LEO, one can be charged with using "deadly weapons" for these "less lethal" devices (see the Ciyou cites above--tazer is specifically listed in "deadly weapons" and pretty much everything I've ever seen lists a club as one) unless the situation calls for deadly force. So while the intermediate steps are useful to have in one's toolbox I remain skeptical that they are any real legal protection for situations where use of deadly force is not legally authorized for non-LEO's.

In my experience however, this has never happened. I know of countless citizens who have employed OC spray without a hitch — this happens a lot! Now I have not heard about a citizen using a taser so I cannot comment on that. Correctly employing less lethal devices will always put you in better legal shape than shooting the subject in my past professional opinion.

 

[dburkhead]

In my experience however, this has never happened. I have seen countless citizens employ OC spray without a hitch.

And I've seen lots of people without licenses take handguns to the range. That people have gotten away with it doesn't mean it's legal.

 

[agentl074]

And I've seen lots of people without licenses take handguns to the range. That people have gotten away with it doesn't mean it's legal.

I am telling you that it was.... These incidents involving OC spray were documented and they did not just "happen". Correctly employing OC is good! I hate to sound like a broken record here but this stuff happens more than you may think. I am just speaking from professional experience

If you have no other means to protect yourself and you are in fear for your life, this is a different story. Always exhaust all other options before using deadly/lethal force whenever possible.

 

[Rookie]

Would this apply? This was taken from a post a few months ago...

A tip from Masaad Ayoob was from his Judicious Use of Lethal Force video. It was during a talk about home invasions, but it applies here. If an altercation is imminent, and you draw your weapon to a low ready or whatever your training describes as a ready defensive position, and the BG continues to attack...You can make some assumptions.

1) He knows that I have a deadly weapon in my hand because he can see it.
2) He can reasonably assume that I know how to use it and that it is not an empty threat.
3) I don't know anything about this person. He may be a thug, a retired Navy Seal, SAS, KGB, Honor roll student, etc.
4) In that situation I know nothing about what training he has, but he knows something about the training I have.
5) No one would continue to attack if they thought they had a major chance of losing.
6) Because the bad guy is pushing the attack he must be confident enough in his skills that he can still win the altercation even with me holding a gun.
7) He has enough training to win the attack unarmed against an armed gunman
8) The only way to stop him is to kill him.

 

[huntall50]

I can't believe this has gone on 30 pages. lol. Man this discussion is needed in a different context. Maybe an open dialog between LEO and those that carry weapons.
Hey this guy drew and showed his weapon because he was in a unfamiliar neighborhood and was scared, he did'nt know how to deal with people any other way. Stay where you feel safe buying liquor, not all people drink what you drink or for the same reasons. Thats funny! Glad you made it out safe.

 

[Bubba]

The problem is that, as a non-LEO, one can be charged with using "deadly weapons" for these "less lethal" devices (see the Ciyou cites above--tazer is specifically listed in "deadly weapons" and pretty much everything I've ever seen lists a club as one) unless the situation calls for deadly force. So while the intermediate steps are useful to have in one's toolbox I remain skeptical that they are any real legal protection for situations where use of deadly force is not legally authorized for non-LEO's.

Where, now, are the people saying they'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6? I think a clearly articulated "he was acting aggressively and wouldn't let me get away so I juiced him" gives my lawyer a much better chance of convincing 7/12ths of my peers that I acted reasonably than "he gave me the willies so I shot him."

I can't believe this has gone on 30 pages. lol. Man this discussion is needed in a different context. Maybe an open dialog between LEO and those that carry weapons.

I think this is a great framework for just such an open dialogue. It gives a way for LEO and non-LEO to discuss use of force within the context of an event and cuts down on the usual free-form "what ifs" that normally kill such threads.