The 'won't back down' situation

[2ADMNLOVER]

To all the folks that feel my comments are "y over the top" or "way out of line" , earning me negative rep "bud".

I feel that comments that both JosephR and dross made were disrespectful and belittling .

Instead of agreeing to disagree I'm told ,

"When grown men fight , it's not like it was on the playground at school , men die in fistfights " ---dross

" If you want to talk about situations where you can hug and kiss afterwards , start your own thread "---JosephR

so I feel like I responded in kind . I might not be as old as some of you but having spent four years in the military and six years EMT certified , I'm not a kid who doesn't have a clue what happens when men act like animals instead of using their brains either .

The article posted about the "Traffic argument ends in gun being pointed" is supposed to point out "how yelling at someone else can turn into a life or death situation" .

Ok , it does that . One choice the motorist had was to kill the man with the knife , but he didn't . He didn't "shoot him in the knee" or fire "warning shots" as some have suggested .

JoesephR tells us how he's "been there and done that " and how the man put a hand on his gun , he could've shot and killed that man , but he didn't either .

He goes on to tell people to "GTFO" and go "talk about crocheting" .

Did he "earn some negative rep " to ? Or is it a case of jump on everyone who has a different opinion than me and my friends ?

As I read the original post the BG never produced a weapon or never said he would kill you . I guess you are supposed to assume that and go with it cause assumptions are never wrong . There was a lot of talk about "he could have done this or that", and a lot of talk of "I'd shoot him"

I was trying to make the point that killing the BG might not be the best course of action .

Apparently I went about making my point the wrong way and offended a few , for that I AM SORRY , that wasn't my intent . However I wont sit back and take being talked down to either .

All opinions are welcome , and I wont tell you to GTFO if you don't agree with me .

 

[Alerion]

I disagree, the victim would not be unreasonable in believing that the attacker (advancing on an armed victim) had intentions other than what the attacker had verbally stated his intentions to be, intentions which probably involved making a play for the victims weapon once the attacker felt he was close enough.

I'm just saying that you don't make the statement that he was approaching in a non-threatening manner and then claim that you felt threatened. If you believe someone is trying to take your gun that's still being approached in a threatening manner.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

I'm just saying that you don't make the statement that he was approaching in a non-threatening manner and then claim that you felt threatened. If you believe someone is trying to take your gun that's still being approached in a threatening manner.

EXACTLY + 10 for getting it !

 

[JosephR]

2ADM-

I believe the problem is you are coming from a very different perspective AND trying to get your beliefs across in the wrong thread. We are talking about HOW to get the guy to back down, not how to do anything else here.

We are all giving legitimate ideas, noone is seriously saying to shoot in the knees and that person that actually did say that stopped- his idea doesn't fly here either- it's wrong and illegal. Had he kept on, he'd have been on the bad side of many people.

BG doesn't have to say he's going to kill you OR produce a weapon. If I walked at you with my index finger pointing at you through my hoodie would it alarm you? Same thing here- acts of aggression.

You're new, you're looking to get involved. You have valuable opinions but they aren't going to fit into this thread because it's got no outcomes that lie with your belief system. This confrontation already escalated past the point where you'd politely duck out and remove yourself.

 

[JosephR]

EXACTLY + 10 for getting it !

Why don't you BOTH read that he said you are in IMMINENT danger? I even re-quoted it.

 

[Alerion]

Enemy has assaulted you, whether verbally, getting in your face in a threatening way, whatever. Not battery, but assault. For the sake of the question, let's say that the threat was not immediate but imminent

Alerion- Did you also take statements from witnesses and put in your report that this assault occured?

JosephR- Did you read the first part of my post?

You might note that I said this was the part of my report based on that statement. I would have interviewed the other subject and any witnesses as well. However, I only had a small part of the story to work with. But I'm not going to invent more story than I was given.

Rest assured that, in the real world, I would have done as complete of an investigation as possible.

 

[JosephR]

JosephR- Did you read the first part of my post?

You might note that I said this was the part of my report based on that statement. I would have interviewed the other subject and any witnesses as well. However, I only had a small part of the story to work with. But I'm not going to invent more story than I was given.

Rest assured that, in the real world, I would have done as complete of an investigation as possible.

I'm not questioning how you do your job as an officer, please don't be offended. I was hoping to see that in the "report" as supporting evidence that the OP was about to be battered after being assaulted. You can put witnesses' statements to that effect in there, right?

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

Why don't you BOTH read that he said you are in IMMINENT danger? I even re-quoted it.

I'm all for shooting BG's when they need it , but in this case your in danger of what exactly ? Being talked to ? Again no weapon .

 

[jmiller676]

I've tried searching, but haven't run into anything. I know there is no duty to retreat in IN, however there is a situation that comes to mind, that does play out in movies a lot, though if you run into the right crazy, it could be real life.

Enemy has assaulted you, whether verbally, getting in your face in a threatening way, whatever. Not battery, but assault. For the sake of the question, let's say that the threat was not immediate but imminent, standing 5+ feet away and you draw, not to fire but to diffuse. Please don't respond with 'you should only draw to shoot' responses either.

You draw your weapon and tell them not to move and give them a warning. They say, "chill out, I'm not going to hurt you. I'm unarmed, I'm not going anything" and continue slowly advancing toward you. They have their arms extended, no weapon in sight.

My initial response would be, SHOOT. My question is, would there be any legal repercussions? Would an LEO say that he even verbally backed down and did not pose a threat when I fired?. Could a defense attorney for him argue that I used the gun unlawfully because he had already backed down and was moving in to shake hands?

The ultimate question is:
If a man is held at gunpoint and continues to advance though warned, in a 'slow, non threatening manner', is this means to fire? It's either that or run imo. thoughts?

Let's hear answers for both on my property vs. in public (ally, mall, wherever)

Meaning there is a high probability that this situation is going bad. If the threat was immediate then we would probably all agree drawing and firing is the only option if it is immediate.

 

[jmiller676]

I'm all for shooting BG's when they need it , but in this case your in danger of what exactly ? Being talked to ? Again no weapon .

You can talk to someone 5+ ft away can't you? If they are approaching you and you warn them then yes, you are in danger. In danger of death or severe bodily harm. The BG does not need to posses a weapon to be dangerous.

 

[Alerion]

Why don't you BOTH read that he said you are in IMMINENT danger? I even re-quoted it.

Why don't you read that if you were in IMMINENT danger then you don't tell the officer that the guy was non-threatening!

JosephR: "I shot him because I was in imminent fear for my life."
Officer: "So you felt that he was a threat?"
JosephR: "No, he was totally non-threatening! Why do you ask?"

 

[JosephR]

Probably shouldn't have used immediate to describe that it's not coming and imminent as "upon him" but that's how it worked.

Either way, "imminent" means it's about to break and turn ugly.

2ADM- What am I in danger of? I don't know. I don't want to look back on it in the hospital and wonder what signs I did or didn't see that a knife was coming or that there was a gun in his hand that I didn't see.

once again, DISCUSS WHAT THE OP HAS BROUGHT IN FRONT OF YOU OR GO AWAY PLEASE. The OP said you are in imminent danger- he simply decided not to say "knife" or "syringe" or "greased pole" or "gun" for the sake of simplicity but he did say you were in danger. What part of "you are in imminent danger" do you not get?

Are you telling me that if I put you in imminent danger you'd stop to ask stupid questions that noone will answer for you?

 

[Richard]

I'm all for shooting BG's when they need it , but in this case your in danger of what exactly ? Being talked to ? Again no weapon .

Like I said previously, a victim is under no legal obligation to allow an attacker to close distance enough in which their firearm may be taken from them and used against them.

Regardless of if the attacker is visibly armed or not.

 

[JosephR]

Why don't you read that if you were in IMMINENT danger then you don't tell the officer that the guy was non-threatening!

JosephR: "I shot him because I was in imminent fear for my life."
Officer: "So you felt that he was a threat?"
JosephR: "No, he was totally non-threatening! Why do you ask?"

What are you asking? What makes you think I'm saying he's a non-threat?

 

[JosephR]

Like I said previously, a victim is under no legal obligation to allow an attacker to close distance enough in which their firearm may be taken from them and used against them.

Regardless of if the attacker is visibly armed or not.

To back that up and I would bet Askerion could verify, you are authorized to use the same force to defend your pistol's security just as an officer is, right? Going for an officer's pistol will get you shot.

What is the 21 foot rule for? When you are within 21 feet of me, you are considered UNIVERALLY a threat to my well being PERIOD. If you are arguing and yelling FIRST then guess what?

 

[Alerion]

I'm not questioning how you do your job as an officer, please don't be offended. I was hoping to see that in the "report" as supporting evidence that the OP was about to be battered after being assaulted. You can put witnesses' statements to that effect in there, right?

OK, now I see where you're coming from. There's nothing in there about the OP being battered because he never made that statement. It is kind of assumed that he felt threatened by the fact that he claimed to have been verbally assaulted but he also said there had been no physical assault. One of the hard parts about writing a police report is NOT adding any more to the story than what was presented. That, however, tends to be human nature. That's also why most of my reports were written in very concise statements with very little embellishment.

As far as witness statements...assuming they were accurate...they wouldn't do our OP much good. The threat to him probably went past before most witnesses would have even noticed and, once he pulled his gun, he became the much more noticeable threat. Then, the witnesses probably didn't even notice the second guy was approaching the shooter, just that he was unarmed, holding his arms out, saying he wasn't going to do anything... To most witnesses, our OP would come off as the bad guy.

 

[JosephR]

Good point that most people would notice the argument post-draw as opposed to pre-draw.

Yeah, it's been stated that "you feel threatened" so NOONE here can say someone else shouldn't feel threatened.

You've already been told that "Something" has occured to tell you that danger is imminent. THAT is different for every person but it doesn't matter since according to the OP, you have been put in front of danger. This works whether you consider an old lady with a cane danger or a gang of bikers danger.

 

[Alerion]

What are you asking? What makes you think I'm saying he's a non-threat?

Because, in my original post, I said not to tell an officer that you were approached in a "non threatening manner" if you wanted to claim self defense and you disagreed with that statement.

 

[JosephR]

Oh gotcha. Yeah, that goes without saying. Also don't tell him the guy was unarmed after you shoot him and find out he wasn't. Also, don't tell him you like a man in a uniform!

 

[Richard]

Why don't you read that if you were in IMMINENT danger then you don't tell the officer that the guy was non-threatening!

JosephR: "I shot him because I was in imminent fear for my life."
Officer: "So you felt that he was a threat?"
JosephR: "No, he was totally non-threatening! Why do you ask?"

Was it really necessary to intentionally misconstrue the context of the scenario in order to make your point?

If an unarmed attacker knowingly continues their advance on an armed victim, the victim can reasonably assume that the unarmed attacker intends to arm themselves with the victims weapon, regardless of how slow or "non-threatening" that advance appears to be.