The 'won't back down' situation

[2ADMNLOVER]

 

[thompal]

It amazes me when thinking about it how many different ways this scenario could have deviated from what happened. I had been awake for almost 24 hours straight and was definately NOT at 100%.

I think it's a given that in nearly every encounter, you will most likely NOT be at 100%. Maybe you're awakened at 3am by someone entering your bedroom, or you're in the shower when you hear someone in your house which you KNOW should be empty, or maybe someone manages to sneak within your safety radius while you are scraping snow off your car windows, or any other of a million scenarios.

If we could be assured that we would only be attacked/threatened while we are ready, with our gun uncovered/coat unbuttoned, awake, alert, not taking a ****, etc., we could be a little more confident.

 

[Richard]

This is the part I get stuck on , so far the BG hasn't done anything but close the distance , are we to ASSUME that he's said something to make you feel threatened . ?

Common sense dictates that if an attacker is knowingly closing distance on an armed victim that they fully intend to take control of the victims weapon.

 

[JosephR]

Yeah, he was told that a long time ago as well as many other things. Like I guessed earlier, he was hung up on one fine point that he couldn't get past. You know how it can be sometimes...

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

Common sense dictates that if an attacker is knowingly closing distance on an armed victim that they fully intend to take control of the victims weapon.

Please see page twelve , I get it now .

Thanks for taking the time to explain it and give the bad rep , bud .

I GIVE , HONESTLY I DO .

 

[mettle]

Common sense dictates that if an attacker is knowingly closing distance on an armed victim that they fully intend to take control of the victims weapon.

Agreed. That is why I say a low one handed retention position isthe best at this point. If he is coming with a knife, he will close the gap faster the the bullets will stop him.
The person with the knife will do more carnage than one with the pistol. He can open up the bod cavity in large sweeping motions. Knives never run out of ammo, never jam and only stop when the arm that moves it, the heart that is beating and the mind that is attacking under adenaline ceases to think.
If he is closing and reaching back to swing empty handed the free hand will be able to ward off the initial blow to delay the physical.

Just my 2

 

[spartan933]

Happened a few years ago in Cedar Lake at a bar. Unarmed guy advanced on an armed guy, warning shot, still advancing, second shot to the heart. Guy dies. Shooter goes to court, three or four years later, goes to trial, not guilty verdict.

 

[finity]

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)

So what exactly is the "threat"?

You say there was one but you also say that he is not known by you to be armed & he has broken off his verbal "assault" but is walking toward you in a "slow, non-threatening manner".

There is no distinction in the law authorizing deadly force between 'your property' & 'public property' unless 'your property' is your dwelling, curtilage or occupied vehicle.

 

[MyGlockRocks19]

I've got a buddy that is very skilled in martial arts...if memory serves me, he holds a 5th degree blackbelt in Kenpo karate, and has studied two other forms along the way. He also has a nasty temper.

One of the many tricks he has up his sleeve, if one can call this a trick, is methods of dealing with armed assailants. Drawing from concealment, low ready, and even on target with a pistol (triple checked for safety before hand!) he always managed to have my weapon pointed either away from him, or directly back at me! before I pulled the trigger. The distance at which he could do this, consistantly, was at best about 10-12 feet away. But within that range, he could do it every time, regardless of the fact that I was anticipating it. The next step was taking it out of my hands....it took less than a second, and again, I was anticipating it and actively trying to prevent it.

The point is, an unarmed assailant can still be very deadly, and you never know what they're capable of doing. I'm damned quick with a pistol, but my buddy is much faster with his hands. The legality of it might play out against you, but then again, you might be dead.

 

[Richard]

So what exactly is the "threat"?

You say there was one but you also say that he is not known by you to be armed & he has broken off his verbal "assault" but is walking toward you in a "slow, non-threatening manner".

There is no distinction in the law authorizing deadly force between 'your property' & 'public property' unless 'your property' is your dwelling, curtilage or occupied vehicle.

Prehaps you didn't notice but there are 13 pages of discussion that followed the OP's original scenario description.

 

[finity]

The point is, an unarmed assailant can still be very deadly, and you never know what they're capable of doing.

That's very true.

& that's part of the problem, as well...

You have to prove that you were in reasonable fear of severe bodily injury based on what another reasonable person would have done in exactly the same situation knowing exactly what you did before you acted before you can use deadly force in self-defense.

You have no way of knowing that the person has had martial arts training & was more dangerous than the average person. All you knew was that he was somehow 'assailing' you (again what is the manner of the 'assailment'?) from over 10 feet away. Do you get to shoot someone who is cussing at you from 10 feet away? From 20 feet?

I agree with you when you say that the legal problems won't go well for someone in this situation.

 

[finity]

Prehaps you didn't notice but there are 13 pages of discussion that followed the OP's original scenario description.

So?

I didn't see where the "threat" was actually defined by the OP. If he did I apologize & maybe you could point me to it.

Thanks!

 

[Richard]

So?

I didn't see where the "threat" was actually defined by the OP. If he did I apologize & maybe you could point me to it.

Thanks!

What part of "the attacker knowingly continued his advance on an armed victim" did you not understand?

 

[MyGlockRocks19]

You have no way of knowing that the person has had martial arts training & was more dangerous than the average person.

Thats precisely my point...you have no way of knowing what that person is capable of....the very fact that they continue to advance, despite the fact that they are facing serious bodily injury or death, is enough to determine them to be a serious threat.

I've pondered this myself, and can only conclude that an unarmed person advancing on me while I have a weapon drawn does so with the intention of attempting to wrest that weapon from my possession and kill me with it. Based on my prior experiences, it is entirely possible that they can do so, and so I will shoot.

 

[finity]

What part of "the attacker knowingly continued his advance on an armed victim" did you not understand?

I guess the part that said:

"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." & "in a 'slow, non threatening manner'".

I'm asking the OP to exactly define the threat. Someone walking toward them in a non-threatening manner isn't a threat (hence the term non-threatening). Even if they just "yelled" at them.

Why exactly did they feel threatened? Why do you call him an 'attacker' if he was non-threatening or if he was just yelling at someone?

You may think I'm being dense but I won't be the only one asking those questions if the OP shoots somebody under those conditions.

If the OP can't answer those questions maybe the OP shouldn't shoot until they have more reason to actually fear for their life or SBI as opposed to "I shot him because he scared me".

There is a difference in the legal response to the use of unlawful force compared to the threat of severe bodily injury.

 

[finity]

Thats precisely my point...you have no way of knowing what that person is capable of....the very fact that they continue to advance, despite the fact that they are facing serious bodily injury or death, is enough to determine them to be a serious threat.

I've pondered this myself, and can only conclude that an unarmed person advancing on me while I have a weapon drawn does so with the intention of attempting to wrest that weapon from my possession and kill me with it. Based on my prior experiences, it is entirely possible that they can do so, and so I will shoot.

You're right. They are facing SBI or death.

At what point in the OP scenario could the 'attacker' (in this case it's more like the 'yell-er at-er') have become the victim because they "withdraw(s) 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."?

After he states that "I'm not going to hurt you. I'm unarmed, I'm not going anything" or walks toward you in a "non-threatening manner"?

It may be a ruse but if you can't articulate a reasonable threat to yourself of SBI then you're going down, not the other guy. If you continue the fight (& I think shooting him would count there) after he withdraws from combat, you are now the aggressor. It looks like that's the way the law is written.

So you'll shoot someone who is unarmed at 10 to 15 feet away? Based on the idea that "well, I had a buddy who was a 5th degree black belt & he could take my gun from me from that distance so I was scared this guy could do it, too"? Does that really sound reasonable? If not then it fails the test.

I guess now that we've read about it happening on the internet then that now becomes the baseline for all of our responses to a vaguely threatening situation? "I was scared he would take my gun because I read about it happening on the internet."

 

[Richard]

I guess the part that said:

"They say, "chill out, I'm not going to hurt you. I'm unarmed, I'm not going anything" and knowingly continue slowly advancing toward an armed victim. They have their arms extended, no weapon in sight." & "in a 'slow, non threatening manner'".

There is a difference in the legal response to the use of unlawful force compared to the threat of severe bodily injury.

As I have previously stated; there is no legal requirement for a victim to allow an attacker to get close enough to them to beable wrestle the victim's control of their weapon from them, regardless of anything the attacker says or how slow & "non-threatening" the attacker moves.

This really isn't that hard to understand.

 

[dross]

You're right. They are facing SBI or death.

At what point in the OP scenario could the 'attacker' (in this case it's more like the 'yell-er at-er') have become the victim because they "withdraw(s) 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."?

After he states that "I'm not going to hurt you. I'm unarmed, I'm not going anything" or walks toward you in a "non-threatening manner"?

It may be a ruse but if you can't articulate a reasonable threat to yourself of SBI then you're going down, not the other guy. If you continue the fight (& I think shooting him would count there) after he withdraws from combat, you are now the aggressor. It looks like that's the way the law is written.

So you'll shoot someone who is unarmed at 10 to 15 feet away? Based on the idea that "well, I had a buddy who was a 5th degree black belt & he could take my gun from me from that distance so I was scared this guy could do it, too"? Does that really sound reasonable? If not then it fails the test.

I guess now that we've read about it happening on the internet then that now becomes the baseline for all of our responses to a vaguely threatening situation? "I was scared he would take my gun because I read about it happening on the internet."

In the scenario we're going by, no one has withdrawn. A guy has continued to approach you after you've drawn your weapon and told him he will be shot if he comes forward. It doesn't matter what sounds are coming out of his mouth, his actions indicate that you are in a life and death fight. You don't know if he's armed or not. Are you suggesting that you shouldn't take action against someone who continues to advance upon you after you've told him you're going to shoot him if he does?

 

[finity]

In the scenario we're going by, no one has withdrawn. A guy has continued to approach you after you've drawn your weapon and told him he will be shot if he comes forward. It doesn't matter what sounds are coming out of his mouth, his actions indicate that you are in a life and death fight. You don't know if he's armed or not. Are you suggesting that you shouldn't take action against someone who continues to advance upon you after you've told him you're going to shoot him if he does?

No.

I'm saying that you better have a better reason than, "he was walking toward me, in a non-threatening way, after he yelled at me & I heard on the internet it was possible to take my gun away faster than I could pull the trigger from 10 feet away so I shot him" or even that "he was walking toward me silently with his index finger pointing at me from beneath his hoodie" like a modern day variation of the Grim Reaper.

You have to have an articulable reason why you felt it was justified that you used deadly force on someone. You have to be able to convince a jury (of potentially anti-gun people) why you thought you had to kill someone. The burden of proof is on you not the state to prove otherwise.

It is not illegal to walk toward someone who has a weapon pointed at you. It is stupid, but not illegal. It will put you on alert for a possible attack but it doesn't justify deadly force by itself.

My advice at that point to completely cover yourself legally (& some would say morally) is cover & protect your weapon (i.e. raise your non-gun hand to fend off a possible attack & pull the gun to your hip/torso in a point shooting position), continue to give loud commands to back away in case of any witnesses & if they make contact with you or produce a weapon then you are justified in using deadly force to stop them.

If they really are 'attacking' (& not just posturing for their friends or GF) at some point they will have to 'make their move'. You can't 'attack' someone by moving slowly & non-threateningly. You can't punch or stab someone slowly. Be prepared for it & then react accordingly.

I think the OP brought up an excellent question. It is not your typical "MWAG demanding your money or your life" scenario. It is nuanced & requires a nuanced response. Sometimes self-defense isn't clear cut & you have to be ready for those situations as well as the more in your face types. I personally think he would've handled it wrong (based on the "I think I would shoot" comment). He asked for advice & I gave it.

OTOH, if it is one of those in your face types of scenario's or if they are attacking your house or occupied car then by all means, shoot 'em to the ground.

 

[Ashkelon]

Well, the practical courtroom strategy advice is you had better shoot him dead quick and dirty because if you get into a discussion about whether he continued to come at you and whether it was threatening or non threatening you have already lost your case and you will be pleading out to a voluntary manslaughter because you can't run the risk of doing 55 on a murder charge.

You better be able to say it was an onslaught of aggression and there was no time to even provide a warning.
In a criminal proceeding if you had time to warn him you had time to back away yourself and if you are pulling your gun and giving a warning then the situation wasn't so threatening was it? Either it is life threatening or its not. You either react or you don't. The legal system is practical terms does allow for the muddy situation described. Its called manslaughter not murder.

Perception of the situation is what is most key. We all view situations through our own lens and what one person may see as threatening another may not.
Good thing we are getting all these CCTV units installed so we no longer have to rely on the people involved in the actual situation eh?