The 'won't back down' situation

[PatMcGroyne]

I've never killed any aggressor since 'Nam, but if I'm advanced upon by an obvious belligerent ne're-do-well, I'd STK. I have made my weapon obvious only one time in the last 15 years, and it was this year, as a "homey" in a "hoodie" (can I say that?) was shuffling around the M.O. kiosk in WallyWorld, looking suspicious to me. I had $1,000 in my hands, and other customers had cash showing also. I caught "homey's" eye and casually showed the full length of a under-the-arm holster G-21 to him, watching his face. Can black turn to white?? I think so. In that case, no-one encroached. But if "some-one" had, I would have drawn, and held him on the floor until help arrived. Same deal if I was still un-disclosed and "some-one" began to duct-tape citizens together. No where to go but down-hill from that. So I'd kill someone. I know what regrets are. I'd have none.

 

[Cpt Caveman]

That forearm strike to the side of the neck is pretty good stuff. Sure doesn't take much of a lick to knock ya silly. I know!

 

[Richard]

That forearm strike to the side of the neck is pretty good stuff. Sure doesn't take much of a lick to knock ya silly. I know!

Well the video does prove the point as to why you should never let an "unarmed" aggressor advance on you.

It may only take a single punch, kick or in some cases even just a shove to put your weapon into the hand of the aggressor.

 

[bwframe]

Well the video does prove the point as to why you should never let an "unarmed" aggressor advance on you.

It may only take a single punch, kick or in some cases even just a shove to put your weapon into the hand of the aggressor.

Absolutely correct. However, if someone truly intends to take you out who knows what they are doing, 5 feet or even twice that distance is not enough for you to go for your gun. They will be on you before you can draw, on top of the fact that the draw can be their trigger. You need to know some evasive and, or aggressive hand to hand techniques to protect your gun and your life.

 

[thompal]

First, I don't draw to defuse a situation. If I draw my firearm, I have made the decision to shoot. If the situation changes before I finish pulling the trigger, all the better. And I don't care if the opponent is unarmed, or how slow they are moving. If I've drawn it's because I've determined they are a threat to me, and if they continue their advance they will get shot.

Agreed. This brings up a question I've been meaning to ask; to wit:

How many of you practice drawing and NOT shooting?? In other words, do you worry that by constantly practicing the draw and double-tap that you are developing muscle memory so that they become one action, even in situations where drawing may be the only action needed?

 

[Willard]

Dead people don't need attorneys.

Anyone have a concern about being disarmed (holstered weapon) during a physical altercation after deciding not to draw the weapon, and having your own weapon used against you?

 

[public servant]

Dead people don't need attorneys.

And unfortunately...should you ever have to kill a man (or woman) to protect your own life...that statement may be produced by an attorney and used to hang you out to dry. Be cautious about what you say and offer for public viewing. You and I both know it's not meant as a threat...and was probably intended as half-humorous...but an attorney will produce that statement and say, "Did you or did you not, on 05/17/2009 at 08:41 hours post a comment on a local gun owners forum stating that you intended to kill a person if you ever got into a physical confrontation because if you killed that person they would not be able to testify against you"?

I'm not making a "tin foil hat" reference that somewhere, someone is taking notes on everything you say or post...but remember, "anything you say (and post) can be used against you". You only shoot a firearm to neutralize an imminent threat to life and safety...yours or that of someone else...never to kill. That should never be the intention. We've all done it...I'm just saying...

 

[agentl074]

I doubt I would unholster but I would certainly uncover my weapon & place my hand upon it, issuing the following commands loudly & clearly: "KEEP YOUR HANDS WHERE I CAN SEE THEM" & "STAY BACK".

Those commands are non-negotiable IMHO.

Textbook

 

[WinChoke]

Very well said. Rep on the way.

And unfortunately...should you ever have to kill a man (or woman) to protect your own life...that statement may be produced by an attorney and used to hang you out to dry. Be cautious about what you say and offer for public viewing. You and I both know it's not meant as a threat...and was probably intended as half-humorous...but an attorney will produce that statement and say, "Did you or did you not, on 05/17/2009 at 08:41 hours post a comment on a local gun owners forum stating that you intended to kill a person if you ever got into a physical confrontation because if you killed that person they would not be able to testify against you"?

I'm not making a "tin foil hat" reference that somewhere, someone is taking notes on everything you say or post...but remember, "anything you say (and post) can be used against you". You only shoot a firearm to neutralize an imminent threat to life and safety...yours or that of someone else...never to kill. That should never be the intention. We've all done it...I'm just saying...

 

[Crystalship1]

Very well said. Rep on the way.

X2!!!

 

[agentl074]

And unfortunately...should you ever have to kill a man (or woman) to protect your own life...that statement may be produced by an attorney and used to hang you out to dry. Be cautious about what you say and offer for public viewing. You and I both know it's not meant as a threat...and was probably intended as half-humorous...but an attorney will produce that statement and say, "Did you or did you not, on 05/17/2009 at 08:41 hours post a comment on a local gun owners forum stating that you intended to kill a person if you ever got into a physical confrontation because if you killed that person they would not be able to testify against you"?

I'm not making a "tin foil hat" reference that somewhere, someone is taking notes on everything you say or post...but remember, "anything you say (and post) can be used against you". You only shoot a firearm to neutralize an imminent threat to life and safety...yours or that of someone else...never to kill. That should never be the intention. We've all done it...I'm just saying...

Perhaps Kirk can chime in on the admissibility of online forums and voluntary statements. I personally believe that it all depends Civil court is another issue.

 

[Chefcook]

I doubt I would unholster but I would certainly uncover my weapon & place my hand upon it, issuing the following commands loudly & clearly: "KEEP YOUR HANDS WHERE I CAN SEE THEM" & "STAY BACK".

Those commands are non-negotiable IMHO.

I have to agree... If it escalates from here to me drawing my weapon someone is getting shot...

 

[Goodcat]

Great responses! Thanks everyone. I tend to go with the advice of uncovering the weapon without drawing, ready to draw in case. Best case. :-)

 

[Bill of Rights]

Very well said. Rep on the way.

x3

To the OP, I would ask myself what a LEO would do. The answer I keep coming back to is what Scutter wrote; in essence, if he is advancing to a drawn gun and says he's not a threat, how do I know he's not lying?

The response of "STAY BACK! HANDS WHERE I CAN SEE THEM!" along with "If you continue to move toward me I will shoot!" gives him fair warning. Empty threats have no place in self defense, so if you've said that last one, follow through and shoot to stop the threat. Drawing didn't work, so all you have left is to pull the trigger.

I never want to have to kill anyone. If I have to do it to go home that night, I will.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Dashman010]

Just to follow up, this is a legal nightmare. Lets say he verbally assaults you, you show your weapon, and then he draws his weapon on you and shoots, and you shoot back. His actions are the ones that are going to be justified, not yours. Why? Because you escalated a screaming, he got in my face, match to a situation with a deadly weapon.

Flip the situation around and say that you are a pedestrian walking down the street in a crosswalk and someone runs a red light and almost hits you. You respond verbally with "Jesus f'ing Ch** you d*mn moron." Hearing this, the man stops the car and gets out and draws a gun. He escalated the situation, deadly force is now authorized on your part.

My 2 cents is that you don't draw or show your weapon unless you fear great bodily harm or death that is imminent. Someone screaming at you just doesn't qualify generally, unless you're a 110 pound woman being verbally berated by a 200 pound man. There are always exceptions, but escalation of force when nothing has really happened is a bad way to go, practically and legally. Even if the guy punches you in the face, most of the time drawing a gun is not the solution, because you have just escalated force again, and now if he comes toward you, you're again in legal limbo. (this is of course notwithstanding the fact that a guy coming at someone with a gun is a retard)

 

[homeless]

Remeber kids I am not a lawyer, judge, cop, or the pope, I am just an *******.

My thoughts: First off if I was in a verbal altercation with another fellow there is a damn good reason for it. Now if this little honor student tells me he is going to kill me, then I will assume he is serious. If he advances on me that shows me that he does intend to kill me. If this happens within 21' then he is a threat to my life an I will end the situation.

The real question is why did you let someone get within 5 feet of you? 21' is the rule, anyone inside of that is an direct threat.

 

[Richard]

Just to follow up, this is a legal nightmare. Lets say he verbally assaults you, you show your weapon, and then he draws his weapon on you and shoots, and you shoot back. His actions are the ones that are going to be justified, not yours. Why? Because you escalated a screaming, he got in my face, match to a situation with a deadly weapon.

I disagree, instead of backing off when it became known that the victim was armed, the attacker then escalated it into a "use of deadly force situation" by producing a weapon of his own.

My 2 cents is that you don't draw or show your weapon unless you fear great bodily harm or death that is imminent. Someone screaming at you just doesn't qualify generally.

I disagree, at the very least it's a clear indicator that the aggressor is enraged & that the victim is in a potentially dangerous situation, thus the victim would be prudent to uncover/expose & excersize control over their weapon while the victim was still able to.

Even if the guy punches you in the face, most of the time drawing a gun is not the solution,

I disagree, if the victim had uncovered & placed their hand on their handgun & given commands such as "STAY BACK" & "KEEP YOUR HANDS WHERE I CAN SEE THEM" & the attacker still advanced and punched the victim in the face - I'd say it was the attacker who escalated the situation into a use of deadly force situation.

because you have just escalated force again,

I disagree, a victim taking prudent steps to ward off an attack is not an escalation.

and now if he comes toward you, you're again in legal limbo. (this is of course notwithstanding the fact that a guy coming at someone with a gun is a retard)

I disagree, I see no "legal limbo" here.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

I'm no lawyer either , but I cant get passed the BG not having a weapon .

Just because the BG isn't obviously / visibly drunk or stoned doesn't mean there's nothing physiologically wrong with him , and YOU have the GUN .

If you shoot , I think you set yourself up for failure in the courtroom . I understand if your a small woman or an older person .

I understand the reasons a person would shoot , but I don't trust lawyers or the courts either .

I keep going over this scenario and keep thinking , if I were a juror in your trial , and If the BG wasn't some form of "spec ops" or "black belt" and you shot him , I'd say guilty .

I think it comes down to how you carry yourself , do you look like a predator or prey ? Not looking like prey will keep all but the most determined BG's from trying something .

 

[Dashman010]

Just to follow up, this is a legal nightmare. Lets say he verbally assaults you, you show your weapon, and then he draws his weapon on you and shoots, and you shoot back. His actions are the ones that are going to be justified, not yours. Why? Because you escalated a screaming, he got in my face, match to a situation with a deadly weapon.

I disagree, instead of backing off when it became known that the victim was armed, the attacker then escalated it into a "use of deadly force situation" by producing a weapon of his own.

That's not what I said. I said if someone verbally assaults you, and you display a weapon, deadly force is likely authorized on their part. If an 'attacker' is just verbally abusing you, you are going to be hard pressed to get a jury to understand why you couldn't "take it" and had to draw a weapon. Remember, your subjective belief that your life is in grave danger has to be objectively reasonable. If it's two men, and one is yelling at another, no jury is going to believe that one felt his life was in imminent peril.

My 2 cents is that you don't draw or show your weapon unless you fear great bodily harm or death that is imminent.Someone screaming at you just doesn't qualify generally.

I disagree, at the very least it's a clear indicator that the aggressor is enraged & that the victim is in a potentially dangerous situation, thus the victim would be prudent to uncover/expose & excersize control over their weapon while the victim was still able to.

See my above comments; a person being "enraged", without more, does not justify use of a deadly weapon. If you want to display, all I am saying is that if you display in that situation, it is likely that deadly force the other way is going to be authorized. The 'attacker' presented a non-deadly threat with no use of force, you displayed a deadly threat, and likely a jury would find he would be able to meet that deadly threat with deadly force.

Even if the guy punches you in the face, most of the time drawing a gun is not the solution,

I disagree, if the victim had uncovered & placed their hand on their handgun & given commands such as "STAY BACK" & "KEEP YOUR HANDS WHERE I CAN SEE THEM" & the attacker still advanced and punched the victim in the face - I'd say it was the attacker who escalated the situation into a use of deadly force situation.

Again, I didn't say what you answered to. I said had the guy just came up and punched you in the face, deadly force is not authorized, and any showing of a weapon at this point is an escalation of force.

I disagree, a victim taking prudent steps to ward off an attack is not an escalation.

If someone is displaying a threat that society would recognize objectively as non-deadly, and you display a deadly weapon, by definition you have escalated the force in the fight.

 

[Crystalship1]

I'm no lawyer either , but I cant get passed the BG not having a weapon .

Just because the BG isn't obviously / visibly drunk or stoned doesn't mean there's nothing physiologically wrong with him , and YOU have the GUN .

If you shoot , I think you set yourself up for failure in the courtroom . I understand if your a small woman or an older person .

I understand the reasons a person would shoot , but I don't trust lawyers or the courts either .

I keep going over this scenario and keep thinking , if I were a juror in your trial , and If the BG wasn't some form of "spec ops" or "black belt" and you shot him , I'd say guilty .

I think it comes down to how you carry yourself , do you look like a predator or prey ? Not looking like prey will keep all but the most determined BG's from trying something .

Ummm..... yeaaahh.