The 'won't back down' situation

[Pull Trigger Goes Bang]

What is most aggravating is that there are several other options then shoot or be disarmed that will keep you alive and out of prison.

What other options?

If a person is advancing on you and you believe they intend to attack when they get close enough (too close and too late for you to go to your gun), but they have not as of yet broken any laws in your presence, what are your non-gun options that are reasonably guaranteed to keep you alive and out of prison?

This is a serious question because I would really like to get this thread back on a useful track. There are a lot of people out there with plenty more experience being tough and violent than I have at standing up for myself. There are people who can control themselves until the time is right, then strike when its too late for you to do anything about it (if you have let them get that far). How do you survive such an encounter legally?

 

[kingnereli]

I concede defeat /end conversation.

BWWWHHAAHHHAAHHA!

 

[kingnereli]

What other options?

If a person is advancing on you and you believe they intend to attack when they get close enough (too close and too late for you to go to your gun), but they have not as of yet broken any laws in your presence, what are your non-gun options that are reasonably guaranteed to keep you alive and out of prison?

This is a serious question because I would really like to get this thread back on a useful track. There are a lot of people out there with plenty more experience being tough and violent than I have at standing up for myself. There are people who can control themselves until the time is right, then strike when its too late for you to do anything about it. How do you survive such an encounter legally?

Have you read the entire thread. Yeah, I know, it's long. If you haven't I recommend it. My main point is with the specific details of the original post you can't have a reasonable fear of attack so the gun can't come into play. I understand the suspicion. But to draw your weapon on a man that has yelled at you, said "I'm unarmed. I'm not going to do anything" and is walking towards you and then shooting him will get you a murder conviction. Everyone will do what they feel they need to in a given situation but this course of action will not get you a justifiable homicide.

The best non-gun option is to run away. If this is impossible for some reason then an unarmed defense or a less lethal weapon. Disparity of force might come into play here but assuming that isn't the case you can't shoot shoot an unarmed man who has not shown himself to be a threat and by your own admission has not committed a crime. You won't convince a jury that shooting him is what any reasonable person would do in that situation. And remember that the only way you could think that he is going for your gun is if you are pointing it at him.

Edit: Also look into Ability, Jeopardy and Opportunity in terms of a self defense shooting.

 

[Boilers]

What other options?

If a person is advancing on you and you believe they intend to attack when they get close enough (too close and too late for you to go to your gun), but they have not as of yet broken any laws in your presence, what are your non-gun options that are reasonably guaranteed to keep you alive and out of prison?

This is a serious question because I would really like to get this thread back on a useful track. There are a lot of people out there with plenty more experience being tough and violent than I have at standing up for myself. There are people who can control themselves until the time is right, then strike when its too late for you to do anything about it (if you have let them get that far). How do you survive such an encounter legally?

Apparently the only proper thing to do is don protective clothing, that would give you some defense. Armor, football or hockey equipment. But don't raise a hand, you will be the aggressor. Cower and hope you survive if it's 'sudden'.

 

[kingnereli]

Apparently the only proper thing to do is don protective clothing, that would give you some defense. Armor, football or hockey equipment. But don't raise a hand, you will be the aggressor. Cower and hope you survive if it's 'sudden'.

I love sarcasm. Here is some:

Or you could snarl your lip, put on your Rambo bandana, pull your M60 from your back pocket, mow down this viciously dangerous unarmed assailant and wait for the cops to come lift you on their shoulders while singing He's a Jolly Good Fellow.

 

[Pull Trigger Goes Bang]

Have you read the entire thread. Yeah, I know, it's long. If you haven't I recommend it. My main point is with the specific details of the original post you can't have a reasonable fear of attack so the gun can't come into play. I understand the suspicion. But to draw your weapon on a man that has yelled at you, said "I'm unarmed. I'm not going to do anything" and is walking towards you and then shooting him will get you a murder conviction. Everyone will do what they feel they need to in a given situation but this course of action will not get you a justifiable homicide.

The best non-gun option is to run away. If this is impossible for some reason then an unarmed defense or a less lethal weapon. Disparity of force might come into play here but assuming that isn't the case you can't shoot shoot an unarmed man who has not shown himself to be a threat and by your own admission has not committed a crime. You won't convince a jury that shooting him is what any reasonable person would do in that situation. And remember that the only way you could think that he is going for your gun is if you are pointing it at him.

Edit: Also look into Ability, Jeopardy and Opportunity in terms of a self defense shooting.

I have read the entire thread, as it went along. The problem I have with what you've been saying, and what you reiterate here, is that you are essentially saying there is no defense against such an individual unless you are able to best them in hand-to-hand combat, or have some other less-lethal weapon ready to deploy.

You may be accurately stating how the law and and the legal system work. But do you understand that you're saying that depending on how well the assailant is able to control themselves and conceal their true intention, that there are situations where your only legal option is to essentially let them get the first strike in and let them limit your options in defending yourself?

That's wrong (in a moral sense, if not a legal one). If the totality of the circumstances reasonably convince you that a person is a threat, and they refuse to stop advancing on you even though you have unambiguously commanded them to do so, that should be considered a threat against which a reasonable person would defend themselves.

 

[Richard]

Watch out folks! JNG just neg rep'd me

You better not say something he doesn't like or he'll click on your doohicky thingamajig!

 

[Boilers]

Okay. Don't PULL/POINT gun, but have a pocket pistol in your jacket pocket, pointed at the guy, with your hand on it. And the moment he TOUCHES you pull the tigger.

DId I win?

This is like the riddle of the sphinx. Surely a member of a GUN FORUM has at least one scenario in his mind to discuss use of a GUN, and is not really saying, and trying to get the last word in, that the GUN is an impossibility. So, this scenario HAS to satiate, right? (I know.... no way Jose. He must also pull a weapon or demonstrate superior fighting skills for a duration of no less than two minutes on my face... THEN I can fire)

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

Watch out folks! JNG just neg rep'd me

You better not say something he doesn't like or he'll click on your doohicky thingamajig!

Ya mean like the neg rep you gave me for not liking what I posted in this thread ? .... Is that Karma ?

 

[kingnereli]

I have read the entire thread, as it went along. The problem I have with what you've been saying, and what you reiterate here, is that you are essentially saying there is no defense against such an individual unless you are able to best them in hand-to-hand combat, or have some other less-lethal weapon ready to deploy.

In so many words. I can't begin to account for all the variables in a situation like this. I'm simply arguing the legality of shooting because he doesn't stop walking when you yell, "STOP!"

You may be accurately stating how the law and and the legal system work. But do you understand that you're saying that depending on how well the assailant is able to control themselves and conceal their true intention, that there are situations where your only legal option is to essentially let them get the first strike in and let them limit your options in defending yourself?

It really sucks. If you recall from reading the thread I was, at first, leaning towards shooting. It was reviewing the laws and looking at alternatives that convinced me otherwise. Although you wouldn't have to let him get the first punch in. Remember, there are variables.

That's wrong (in a moral sense, if not a legal one). If the totality of the circumstances reasonably convince you that a person is a threat, and they refuse to stop advancing on you even though you have unambiguously commanded them to do so, that should be considered a threat against which a reasonable person would defend themselves.

Everyone would have to make that decision for themselves. I'm just saying you would go to prison. It isn't reasonable to be afraid of someone who is unarmed and has not attacked you to the degree that deadly force should be used. As a disclaimer though, I hope that legal woes don't deter a legally armed citizen from legally protecting himself/herself.

 

[kingnereli]

Okay. Don't PULL/POINT gun, but have a pocket pistol in your jacket pocket, pointed at the guy, with your hand on it. And the moment he TOUCHES you pull the tigger.

DId I win?

This is like the riddle of the sphinx. Surely a member of a GUN FORUM has at least one scenario in his mind to discuss use of a GUN, and is not really saying, and trying to get the last word in, that the GUN is an impossibility. So, this scenario HAS to satiate, right? (I know.... no way Jose. He must also pull a weapon or demonstrate superior fighting skills for a duration of no less than two minutes on my face... THEN I can fire)

I am having a really difficult time taking you seriously. Are you actually reading other people's posts?

 

[Richard]

Ya mean like the neg rep you gave me for not liking what I posted in this thread ? .... Is that Karma ?

You earned the negative rep by angerly accusing another forum member of "just wanting to kill someone" - which IMHO was way over the line.

 

[sloughfoot]

I reject the original premise, "won't back down situation".

The only thing stopping you from backing down from ANY situation is your pride. Your pride is not worth somebody's life.

If you are backing down and they continue, or if they physically attack you or your companions while you are backing down, that becomes a different situation.

Armed citizens have a DUTY and a RESPONSIBILITY to back down or otherwise defuse a situation so that deadly force does not have to be used.

BTW, someone yelling at you, calling you names, or getting in your face is not "assault".

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

You earned the negative rep by angerly accusing another forum member of "just wanting to kill someone" - which IMHO was way over the line.

Go back to page seven and read the first sentence of my post carefully , WITHOUT applying your assumptions to my words .

You don't know me , therefore you have no idea when I'm angry or not . I wasn't angry nor did I accuse him of anything .

I was making a subjective observation based on the nature of the posts of the man to whom I was directly speaking to , NOT YOU .

I made that observation after I was directly attacked not once but twice , so I was defending myself .

I did so without ever demeaning , belittling or resorting to cussing anyone or telling them to "GTFO" !, unlike the treatment I received .

If you remember correctly , that same man started a post a few days later explaining his actions and reasons for being short with people and he apologized to all involved .

However I don't expect you to understand any of these words or for that matter the "level of force continuum" , since you have a blatant disregard for facts and would rather substitute your assumptions and opinions , apparently their easier for you to grasp .

 

[Richard]

I reject the original premise, "won't back down situation".

The only thing stopping you from backing down from ANY situation is your pride. Your pride is not worth somebody's life.

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 you are backing down and they continue, or if they physically attack you or your companions while you are backing down, that becomes a different situation.

At that point the victim waited to long to react, the attacker is already upon them.

Armed citizens have a DUTY and a RESPONSIBILITY to back down or otherwise defuse a situation so that deadly force does not have to be used.

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;

BTW, someone yelling at you, calling you names, or getting in your face is not "assault".

as·sault (ə-sôlt')

Home > Library > Literature & Language > Dictionary

n.

1. A violent physical or verbal attack.

 

[Richard]

I wasn't angry nor did I accuse him of anything

JosephR , it would seem from some of your posts that aggression is in your nature . Almost as if you cant wait for someone to try this scenario with you so you can finally get a chance to "legally" kill someone .

Yea umm ok.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

as·sault (ə-sôlt')

Home > Library > Literature & Language > Dictionary


n.

1. A violent physical or verbal attack.

So according to your logic and reasoning I could've shot Joe huh .
To bad your not a prosecutor , our jails wouldn't be overcrowded .

 

[kingnereli]

as·sault (ə-sôlt')

Home > Library > Literature & Language > Dictionary

n.

1. A violent physical or verbal attack.

I think he means that yelling and name calling won't necessarily get a person an assault charge regardless of the text book definition of the word "assault." So, your last post was NON SEQUITUR

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

Yea umm ok.

" It would seem " , " almost as if " = "Common sense " dictates that it's an OBSERVATION .

It's just a little different then saying in a matter of fact way that he "wants to " or "is waiting to "

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

I think he means that yelling and name calling won't necessarily get a person an assault charge regardless of the text book definition of the word "assault." So, your last post was NON SEQUITUR

He knows where I was going with it .