PDA

View Full Version : Two attackers, one armed?


Swampy459
March 2, 2009, 08:40 AM
Let's say there's two robbers that stop you in a parking lot. one displaying a knife with the cliche "gimme yo money!" ... do you treat them as one threat and shoot at both (disparity of force), can you safely assume both are armed from a legal standpoint?

I could see a prosecutor saying "well yeah, you could shoot the guy with the gun/knife, but the other guy was unarmed"

thoughts? experiences?

SundownRider
March 2, 2009, 09:00 AM
I would assume that once you have drawn your weapon, the need to shoot might drop dramatically, since you have brought a gun to a knife fight. In my experience, the presence of a superior weapon usually (not always, there is no vaccine for dumbass) causes the thugs to retreat.

Creature
March 2, 2009, 09:12 AM
If the unarmed man is not a immediate threat to life or limb, hold fire. Shoot only to stop the threat.

Japle
March 2, 2009, 09:21 AM
You can't shoot someone who's not a threat to you.

Shooting the guy with the knife is straight self defense. Shooting the guy who's unarmed is wrong from a legal and moral standpoint unless he goes for the dropped knife or he attacks you even after his partner has been shot.

Anyone who attacks an armed person who's just shown that they're willing and able to shoot in self defense is either highly trained and capable of winning (or thinks he is) or crazy or dangerously high. In any case, I'd be in fear of death or serious bodily harm and I'd shoot.

If the unarmed partner reacts the normal way, by backing off and running, let him go.

ltcdoty
March 2, 2009, 10:03 AM
The knife wielding attacker brings back a memory from my days as a police recruit. We had a drill called shoot don't shoot,( the camera was your eyes, and you had a hand control with a button that was the trigger on your handgun). One of the drills was a suspect who had a knife and was standing app. ten feet from you when he throws it at you. You have only a moment to shoot or not. I shot and I failed.....I was told that once the knife left the creeps hand, he was no longer a threat, and all I had to do was dodge the knife. Sounded crazy to me, and that was back in 1973. So I guess how close the dirt ball is before you light him up is important. Now I'm retired, and even being a former LEO, I hope I never have to face your or any other situation. Because I learned a long time ago, when it comes to a shooting you are going where no man has gone before, and you are on your own.....
Regards,:)

Sparks2112
March 2, 2009, 10:32 AM
Depends...

If unarmed BG continues to approach AFTER I shoot his armed buddy, then he's getting shot as well.

If unarmed BG freezes, retreats, does pretty much ANYTHING to let me know he doesn't want any part of what his buddy just got then no shoot.

Pretty simple.

oldkim
March 2, 2009, 11:07 AM
+1 for Sparks

The Great Mahoo
March 2, 2009, 11:33 AM
Interesting question; certainly worth thinking about.

If there are multple agressors, I always consider them all threats, armed or not. If it gets to the point that I am shooting, I am prepared to shoot all of them/until I run out of ammo. However, that doesn't mean I would, or one should shoot them all. It is going to take a split second's determination as to whether you have to keep shooting, regardless of how/if one is armed.

It is going to depend on what they do. If they break and run, they are out of the fight and you stop. If they keep going, so do you. It doesn't matter how each is armed, IMO, as there are weapons already in play. They could go for the weapon to use against you (if they don't have one already.) If there are two attackers w/ guns and one turns to run after the shooting starts, you are no more justified shooting him/her than a fleeing unarmed person.


If things escalate to the point guns are drawn, and more to the point, being fired, keep at it as long as any threat persists. If they are unarmed, they know the stakes and are ready to kill by whatever means they've chosen. If anyone breaks from the fight, armed or not, its over and you let them go.

PoorSoulInJersey
March 2, 2009, 11:40 AM
You can only shoot someone who is a threat.

If you draw and they run away, you can't shoot at all.

If you draw and they still move toward you, I'd shoot the guy with the knife first. If after that, the other guy runs, you can't shoot him.

If you shoot the first guy and then the second keeps moving in, then you could possibly shoot him. It's going to be tricky defending shooting an unarmed guy. He's not a "group of people" attacking you anymore. I could see a DA making a big deal about that, even though personally, I think he'd have just proved he's mentally unstable if he's walking toward you after you just shot his partner.

Basically, you will have to reassess after each action you take (after you draw, after you shoot once, after each shot thereafter....)

Brian Pfleuger
March 2, 2009, 11:45 AM
If the guy attacks after you shoot his buddy then I can't see how it could NOT be justified. What are you supposed to do, put your gun down and box with him? I'd say retreat is preferred if available (obviously), otherwise you're clear to shoot if he attacks.

hogdogs
March 2, 2009, 12:38 PM
Japle, don't pass bad advise without clearly stating it is your own opinion ONLY!
The presence of a knife or gun are obvious weapons but it does not need to involve a man made weapon to make a person a threat to life and limb...
At least not where I live IIRC IMHO YMMV!!!:D
Brent

OldMarksman
March 2, 2009, 04:19 PM
You can only shoot someone who is a threat.

If you draw and they run away, you can't shoot at all.

If you draw and they still move toward you, I'd shoot the guy with the knife first. If after that, the other guy runs, you can't shoot him.

If you shoot the first guy and then the second keeps moving in, then you could possibly shoot him. It's going to be tricky defending shooting an unarmed guy. He's not a "group of people" attacking you anymore. I could see a DA making a big deal about that, even though personally, I think he'd have just proved he's mentally unstable if he's walking toward you after you just shot his partner.

Basically, you will have to reassess after each action you take (after you draw, after you shoot once, after each shot thereafter....)

That sounds reasonable, assuming that avoidance, disengagement, escape, and evasion are no longer viable options.

Also, not to quibble, I don't see a problem with two quick shots before assessing the situation.

twocan
March 2, 2009, 04:27 PM
It is interesting that most of the responses to this situation are heavily biased by the potential action of the District Attorney rather than purely self defense. This is a problem brought about by the rampant increase in political correctness in our society.

When you are personally attacked, adrenaline and the fear of being badly hurt are front and center, and I personally believe that I will not put my self defense actions second while stoping to decide what the DA might do in between each action.

This leads me to suggest that the firearms community needs to spend a lot of effort to educate the unaware public how law abiding citizens have a right to defend ourselves from law breaking thugs - armed or not.

One way to educate the public (and DA's) is to widely disseminate stories of the many times that CCW citizens have saved family, friends and neighbors from brutal attacks by law breaking individuals.

This way, if we are attacked, we can focus on self defense.

Capt. Art

Japle
March 2, 2009, 04:37 PM
Japle, don't pass bad advise without clearly stating it is your own opinion ONLY!
The presence of a knife or gun are obvious weapons but it does not need to involve a man made weapon to make a person a threat to life and limb...
At least not where I live IIRC IMHO YMMV!!!
Brent


Yeah, right. Whatever you say.

This is an internet forum and the OP didn't hire me as a legal consultant. It's my opinion that he's probably smart enough to assume it's my opinion. ;)

Brian Pfleuger
March 2, 2009, 04:38 PM
This leads me to suggest that the firearms community needs to spend a lot of effort to educate the unaware public how law abiding citizens have a right to defend ourselves from law breaking thugs - armed or not.

We do not however, either morally or legally, have the right to kill some one who cannot or will not kill us. If you shoot the attacker with the knife and his buddy is just standing there then shooting him is murder, IMHO. Now, having him looking down the barrel whilst you determine his intent to continue the fight is just plain logic but you must not shoot unless and until he makes himself a threat or a continued threat.

Shadi Khalil
March 2, 2009, 04:55 PM
I think they should both be subject to getting shot. Look at it like this: Two guys set out to rob you, one armed the other not. They confront you and the armed guy kills you, they take the money and run. Now if and when they got caught, the guy without the weapon will still face capital murder charges (initially) In the eyes of the law the accomplice is just as guilty as the assaliant.

marino13
March 2, 2009, 05:10 PM
nicely put teifman

scorpion_tyr
March 2, 2009, 05:10 PM
Shoot armed BG, if the BG that appears unarmed either becomes armed or takes one more step towards you, send a pair to his COM.

If caught in the legal battle I'd argue the fact that I've already used lethal force against the armed BG, so the "unarmed" BG must have really bad things planned, otherwise he would retreat or at least stop his attack.

Creature
March 2, 2009, 05:49 PM
I think they should both be subject to getting shot. Look at it like this: Two guys set out to rob you, one armed the other not. They confront you and the armed guy kills you, they take the money and run. Now if and when they got caught, the guy without the weapon will still face capital murder charges (initially) In the eyes of the law the accomplice is just as guilty as the assaliant.

I seriously doubt that's how the jury would view it.

Shadi Khalil
March 2, 2009, 06:05 PM
I seriously doubt that's how the jury would view it

How do you know for sure? Seems like a pretty valid agument to me. I would doubt a lawyer hasent tried it. They would probably sell it alot better to.

XpatBubba
March 2, 2009, 06:57 PM
BG#1 goes down center mass
If the sucking and gargling sounds coming from his buddy are not enough deterrent and he starts fumbling for the dropped knife or in his pockets he goes down too. If he panics and runs away I would not shoot him in the back, better to run than tango with the MagSafe .44 specials

KC Rob
March 2, 2009, 07:29 PM
If you shoot the first guy and then the second keeps moving in, then you could possibly shoot him. It's going to be tricky defending shooting an unarmed guy. He's not a "group of people" attacking you anymore. I could see a DA making a big deal about that, even though personally, I think he'd have just proved he's mentally unstable if he's walking toward you after you just shot his partner.

I say the shoot the guy without the knife first, there are two of them so in most states that would count as disparity of force, you can still shoot an unarmed attacker if you fear for your life because you are outnumbered. Next pop the guy with the knife, he had a weapon and clearly intended to do you harm! You get two for the price of one and you just did society and big favor! Its all about the order you shoot them in!

[The State of California has determined that these comments contain "tongue in cheek" and may be bad for your health]

OldMarksman
March 2, 2009, 07:31 PM
It is interesting that most of the responses to this situation are heavily biased by the potential action of the District Attorney rather than purely self defense.

Well, that was the original question: "can you safely assume both are armed from a legal standpoint? I could see a prosecutor saying...".

However, I think that in general, the responses discuss the question, "what is self defense, and what is not?". That question must, by its very nature, be addressed by discussing the law in the locality at hand and how prosecutors, judges, and juries are likely to judge various events.

I think there have been some good answers here.

Of course, the answer will be very situation specific.

This is a problem brought about by the rampant increase in political correctness in our society.

I respectfully disagree. The question of when deadly force is justified--which in most places leads directly to the question of what constitutes self defense--has been at the root of the deliberation of a lot of homicide cases for centuries. When a homicide is committed, it is either unlawful or it is justified, and the determination will be made in each case by the judicial system. I don't know that that much has changed in that regard since the beginning of the formulation of the common law.

When you are personally attacked, adrenaline and the fear of being badly hurt are front and center, and I personally believe that I will not put my self defense actions second while stopping to decide what the DA might do in between each action.

Yes, you need to know first what your objective is, and what it is not.

This leads me to suggest that the firearms community needs to spend a lot of effort to educate the unaware public how law abiding citizens have a right to defend ourselves from law breaking thugs - armed or not.

Not a bad idea, but we best educate ourselves on what constitutes the proper exercise of that right first.

Here are some resources that should prove helpful toward that end. They're too lengthy to cut and paste here. It would be a good idea to bookmark, print, and study them--if possible, start before loading your gun:

http://www.useofforce.us/

http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/01c1e7698280d20385256d0b00789923/f587d7d10c34fff2852572b90069bc3c?OpenDocument&Click=

http://www.teddytactical.com/archive/MonthlyStudy/2006/02_StudyDay.htm

http://www.corneredcat.com/

It's also a very good idea to get some training, and perhaps to invest in an hour or two of consultation with a qualified local attorney. That won't be the one who does wills and bankruptcy filings, in most cases.



One way to educate the public (and DA's) is to widely disseminate stories of the many times that CCW citizens have saved family, friends and neighbors from brutal attacks by law breaking individuals.

I don't think most DA's need education on the subject. They and their staffs know the law, the case law, and what has happened in their communities.

Actually, the number of times CCW citizens draw guns in self defense is probably pretty small, and the number of times they fire when in harms way is a whole lot smaller. From the standpoint of the public, I think what they need to know is probably two-fold: that they cannot expect the police to provide them with personal protection--that's up to them; and that even if they (the public) choose to not carry, the fact that they may be carrying concealed makes them safer.

OldMarksman
March 2, 2009, 07:38 PM
I say the shoot the guy without the knife first, there are two of them so in most states that would count as disparity of force, you can still shoot an unarmed attacker if you fear for your life because you are outnumbered. Next pop the guy with the knife, he had a weapon and clearly intended to do you harm! You get two for the price of one and you just did society and big favor! Its all about the order you shoot them in!

[The State of California has determined that these comments contain "tongue in cheek" and may be bad for your health]

Good thing there's a disclaimer on that!

It may be that in some situations that argument might prevail, I don't know. But that reasoning having been posted beforehand could prove most troublesome for the defense.

David Armstrong
March 2, 2009, 08:40 PM
Let's say there's two robbers that stop you in a parking lot. one displaying a knife with the cliche "gimme yo money!" ... do you treat them as one threat and shoot at both (disparity of force), can you safely assume both are armed from a legal standpoint?
Why make the assumption that shooting anybody is the best way to handle this? I don't know how much money you carry around with you, but I'd bet it is less than paying the attorney will be after you shoot somebody.

troy_mclure
March 2, 2009, 08:44 PM
id shoot both, the other guy was reaching for something, going for the knife, etc...

Shadi Khalil
March 2, 2009, 08:51 PM
Why make the assumption that shooting anybody is the best way to handle this? I don't know how much money you carry around with you, but I'd bet it is less than paying the attorney will be after you shoot somebody.

Good point David. I was writing as if shooting had occured or the need arised. Giving over your wallet is alot cheaper and safer. Especially if your with childern/family types. However, sometimes things dont work that way. Here in DC not to long ago there was a pizza man robbed, he complied and was shot anyways.

hogdogs
March 2, 2009, 09:26 PM
For me it has nothing to do with money... As soon as I am sure a person is seriously violent enuff to rob me I am sure my life does not mean as much to them as it does to me and I will commence to survive! Or die trying. And I also have a higher risk factor as I doubt my paltry amount of cash will satisfy the thug and possibly anger them enuff to go stickin' and gittin'
Brent

Shadi Khalil
March 2, 2009, 10:32 PM
And I also have a higher risk factor as I doubt my paltry amount of cash will satisfy the thug and possibly anger them enuff to go stickin' and gittin'

:D

I'm in the same boat, the most valuable thing there getitng off my is my gun.

Swampy459
March 2, 2009, 10:49 PM
Why make the assumption that shooting anybody is the best way to handle this? I don't know how much money you carry around with you, but I'd bet it is less than paying the attorney will be after you shoot somebody.

I'm the original poster and with me they would get no cash. I never said I was protecting any money by shooting. I only carry a debit card thanks to a pick-pocket that nailed me for 300+ one day at an interstate welcome center a thief now would get a wallet full of receipts.

The possibility of a knife in me is why the bulllet would come into play at all.

The thing is, you don't know for sure if the second guy is armed or not, but if he is... let's say guy 2 has a gun concealed... its going to take him at most 2 seconds to draw and fire. so you have 2 seconds to reorient, reassess decide whether to shoot or not, get a good sight picture and pull the trigger. It's possible with that time frame your bullets could pass by each other, or even he might get to his business while you are still scratching your noggin.

If he wasn't armed you have just shot an unarmed man and risk prosecution.

Suits don't scare me nearly as much as prosecution. If you sue me all you will get is practice. (and in my state if the shooting is deemed justified by the DA or a grand jury, the shooter is immune from civil liability)

Criminal prosecution however could possibly take away my freedom for the rest my life and THAT is a lot to ante up.

fastforty
March 2, 2009, 11:46 PM
I started chewing on my tongue when this thread started (it's getting pretty sore, BTW)

1) Absolutely, avoid shooting someone if you can.

2) If my wife & child are present when I'm threatened with a deadly weapon, said weaponholder's chance of survival drops to about 1/10th of 1%. I wouldn't "just" be defending myself & I would not allow him to incapacitate me, then have free reign to do as he pleased with my wife and daughter. Think about it.

3) I *know* that I have heard, either in my CCW class or in one of the legal documents that I have read that when attackers are acting as a group they can ALL be assumed to intend and be capable of inflicting as much bodily injury as any other member of their group.

Sure, there could be situations where shooting the closest or greatest perceived threat would change the remaining attacker's perspective of the situation, resulting in him backing down. More likely though, it would be a very close quarters situation and once I see one knife or gun at contact distance BG #2 aint gonna have time to change his mind and turn tail.

Practice engaging multiple targets.

OldMarksman
March 2, 2009, 11:56 PM
Why make the assumption that shooting anybody is the best way to handle this? I don't know how much money you carry around with you, but I'd bet it is less than paying the attorney will be after you shoot somebody.

Gosh. That idea blew by me. The spare wallet may in fact be the best strategy.

If a trained person like Mas Ayoob recommends it, why should I not use the idea?

hogdogs
March 3, 2009, 12:07 AM
http://www.southernpoliceequipment.com/media/Products/Conceal/Conc%20TripleK%20Thinline%20Wallet%20Holster.jpg
The only wallet I will give a crook...
AND BOY AM I GONNA LET 'EM HAVE IT!!!!
Brent

supergas452M
March 3, 2009, 12:22 AM
We do not however, either morally or legally, have the right to kill some one who cannot or will not kill us. If you shoot the attacker with the knife and his buddy is just standing there then shooting him is murder, IMHO. Now, having him looking down the barrel whilst you determine his intent to continue the fight is just plain logic but you must not shoot unless and until he makes himself a threat or a continued threat.
__________________


Ok, let's examine the scenario here. I am being attacked by two BGs. One of which has shown a knife and demanded my money. This is just me but if I draw, both get at least two rounds COM as fast and agressively as I possibly can. That stops the threat. I'll let the DA sort it out later. There is already disparity of force with an obvious threat on my life. You guys do what you think best but I am going to react with an imperfect plan implemented as suddenly and violently as I can.

Hey but listen to pizzamurderer and creature as they make TFL the number 1 site on the internet for gun related info according to the most wise and powerful wizard WildAlaska. Now excuse me while I go giggle into my pillow.

The Great Mahoo
March 3, 2009, 09:15 AM
The only wallet I will give a crook...
AND BOY AM I GONNA LET 'EM HAVE IT!!!!
Brent

Hogdogs, that holster looks very unsafe to me. I always want a cover over the trigger on anything that I carry. Based on that design, it seems you have to draw by pulling on the trigger(!) since the grip is covered too.

hogdogs
March 3, 2009, 09:26 AM
Good point mahoo, but think of how you draw your current wallet... Mine has no hole or "grip" and it draws real clean. A back pocket carried pistol is less likely to have pocket knife or keys hung up in trigger as well.
for me the right thumb is 'tween butt and wallet and four fingers tween wallet and pocket flap. Pistol would be drawn before inserting finger in trigger guard. I don't own one but would consider it as a viable option for mouse gun carry...
Brent

David Armstrong
March 3, 2009, 10:59 AM
However, sometimes things dont work that way. Here in DC not to long ago there was a pizza man robbed, he complied and was shot anyways.
Agreed. Compliance should be the normal default response, but it should not prohibit other responses as appropriate if it does not work.

David Armstrong
March 3, 2009, 11:03 AM
Suits don't scare me nearly as much as prosecution.
Won't be prosecuted if you don't do anything. That is my point. Way too many folks look at these things as "must shoot" situations instead of "do I have to shoot" situations. Shooting will frequently cost you more in the long run than not shooting will cost you, whether it be time, money, or other resources.

Brian Pfleuger
March 3, 2009, 11:17 AM
There is already disparity of force with an obvious threat on my life. You guys do what you think best but I am going to react with an imperfect plan implemented as suddenly and violently as I can.

Hm, interesting. Disparity of force changes millisecond by millisecond. Two guys with a knife versus one innocent? Yep, disparity of force. One defender with a gun, a disabled or dead knifer and his unarmed buddy standing there with wet pants. The entire situation has changed. Shooting a man who is posing no threat is murder. It doesn't matter what he was doing or intending to do 2 seconds ago. It matters what he's doing RIGHT NOW. Shoot him before he threatens you and YOU are the BG. NOW, which side has a disparity of force? Now who is the attacker?

Hey but listen to pizzamurderer and creature as they make TFL the number 1 site on the internet

You can address any problems with me via PM. Creature is a part of what makes this site worthwhile. He and I have had our share of disagreements, believe me, but that doesn't mean he brings no value to this site. Healthy discourse is part of why I'm here, personal attacks when a party has reached the end of their logical argument is not.

OldMarksman
March 3, 2009, 11:17 AM
Shooting will frequently cost you more in the long run than not shooting will cost you, whether it be time, money, or other resources.

That's one big reason why shooting is, for me, the last resort.

It's an option, but I don't want to use it unless I absolutely have to.

OldMarksman
March 3, 2009, 11:28 AM
Hm, interesting. Disparity of force changes millisecond by millisecond. Two guys with a knife versus one innocent? Yep, disparity of force. One defender with a gun, a disabled or dead knifer and his unarmed buddy standing there with wet pants. The entire situation has changed. Shooting a man who is posing no threat is murder. It doesn't matter what he was doing or intending to do 2 seconds ago. It matters what he's doing RIGHT NOW. Shoot him before he threatens you and YOU are the BG. NOW, which side has a disparity of force? Now who is the attacker?

Very good analysis!

I wonder what the shooter's chances would be of successfully arguing that, with the rapidity of the action at the time, a reasonable person would not have been able to make that assessment?

I imagine it would depend on a number of variables, including the make-up of the jury, the testimony of witnesses, the distance between the shooter and the man without the knife.... and perhaps whether the prosecution had anything like a macho internet posting to establish mens rea...

Thoughts?

Scorch
March 3, 2009, 11:43 AM
A lot of food for thought here, it seems there is no one correct response to any threat. However, since I was trained by the USMC and I am an advanced martial artist, I am in the "shoot both" camp. Why both? Well, the first one with the knife is obvious, he is the most apparent/greatest immediate threat. Two rounds, high torso/base of throat for him, end of story. And since I shoot pretty fast, the second one may not have enough time to turn and run before he gets his two rounds. He also presents a threat, because his intent is to do great bodily harm, whether by use of his hands or a hidden weapon, otherwise he would not be there in the first place. Even if he just intended to intimidate me with his physical presence, there is a term for that also, it is called "strong arm robbery".

If he turns and runs, I'll let him go to tell the story of the day his world stood still, even if only for a split second. He'll need to change his clothes, anyway.

And yes, you don't shoot unless you feel that your life is in immediate danger. This ain't TV.

Brian Pfleuger
March 3, 2009, 11:51 AM
I imagine it would depend on a number of variables, including the make-up of the jury, the testimony of witnesses, the distance between the shooter and the man without the knife....

I'm sure all that and more. That's why "I'd do this or that..." is so unreliable.


I wonder what the shooter's chances would be of successfully arguing that, with the rapidity of the action at the time, a reasonable person would not have been able to make that assessment?

I don't know. IMO, that and many more variables are why it is imperative that we have considered our actions BEFORE we have 1/2 a second to decide.

Double Naught Spy
March 3, 2009, 12:18 PM
Why make the assumption that shooting anybody is the best way to handle this? I don't know how much money you carry around with you, but I'd bet it is less than paying the attorney will be after you shoot somebody.

I see David is suggesting compliance again. Compliance does work about 87% of the time with no harm other than the loss of property. It is the other 13% that scares the hell out of me. David is assuming that the wallet is going to be the only loss. That very well may be a fatal assumption.

Neutralize the immediate threat. If the 2nd player acts in an aggressive manner, then you have to believe that he too is armed as he engages you. Neutralize the second threat.

OldMarksman
March 3, 2009, 12:21 PM
I see David is suggesting compliance again. Compliance does work about 87% of the time with no harm other than the loss of property. It is the other 13% that scares the hell out of me. David is assuming that the wallet is going to be the only loss. That very well may be a fatal assumption.


Well, you could throw down a spare wallet and draw a gun at the same time...

Low cost, low risk.....

rbb50
March 3, 2009, 12:40 PM
That's easy.

If all he has is a knife I can take it away from him in an instant and stab him in the head with it while slamming the other guy to the ground so hard it will break his skull open at the same time.

But that's just me if you need a gun to defend yourself in that case you probably just want to pull it and aim and shoot the guy with the knife in a way he can never have any children to make sure no more idiots like him get added into the already full gene pool of morons while telling the other guy to hit the ground hard or your aim might be better on him as his friend is screaming in pain and foaming at the mouth.

When making the police report be sure to mention how your not a real good shot at all with that pistol in a situation like that or that guy might be dead now instead of just childless from then on :D

OldMarksman
March 3, 2009, 12:52 PM
When making the police report be sure to mention how your not a real good shot at all with that pistol in a situation like that or that guy might be dead now instead of just childless from then on.

I believe that would probably seal your fate.

Careby
March 3, 2009, 02:23 PM
The only wallet I will give a crook...
AND BOY AM I GONNA LET 'EM HAVE IT!!!!

Not to stray off topic, and I'm no expert, but that wallet holster looks like it might be classified an AOW (Any Other Weapon) under NFA rules...

Brian Pfleuger
March 3, 2009, 02:28 PM
hat wallet holster looks like it might be classified an AOW (Any Other Weapon) under NFA rules...

No more than any other holster. The gun is not part of the holster. It's not a "wallet gun" or some such thing. It's a gun in a wallet style (pocket) holster.

Hondo11
March 3, 2009, 02:29 PM
I see David is suggesting compliance again. Compliance does work about 87% of the time with no harm other than the loss of property. It is the other 13% that scares the hell out of me. David is assuming that the wallet is going to be the only loss. That very well may be a fatal assumption.

Neutralize the immediate threat. If the 2nd player acts in an aggressive manner, then you have to believe that he too is armed as he engages you. Neutralize the second threat.



You can calculate the results for 1,000,000 incidents that have happened previously, but you can't predict with ANY certainty what THIS badguy is going to do THIS time. It doesn't work like that. Each situation is completely unique and independent of every other situation before it. Because there is a HUMAN involved.

But hey, if it were really that simple, then any ol' body would be able to comprehend it and we wouldn't need PhD's to know what to do.

My point is, determine what YOU think is the best course of action for THAT SPECIFIC situation, with THAT SPECIFIC badguy(s), and do what YOU think you need to do. Not what you think 87% of people before you did. What they did doesn't matter, unless ALL of them were confronted by the SAME badguy(s) under the exact SAME conditions.

Careby
March 3, 2009, 02:50 PM
No more than any other holster. The gun is not part of the holster. It's not a "wallet gun" or some such thing. It's a gun in a wallet style (pocket) holster.

As I said, I'm no expert. It looks like it was designed to allow firing the gun without removing it from the holster, otherwise why is the trigger exposed? And I can imagine a reasonable person might assume it was designed to make a gun look like a wallet (enough so that you yourself described it as one, and implied you would present it as one), and it looks a lot like "wallet guns" I have seen that were classified by ATF to be AOW's. I would add that I personally think some of the arbitrary details of the NFA are ridiculous.

Dr. Strangelove
March 3, 2009, 03:10 PM
Let's say there's two robbers that stop you in a parking lot. one displaying a knife with the cliche "gimme yo money!" ... do you treat them as one threat and shoot at both (disparity of force), can you safely assume both are armed from a legal standpoint?

I'm surprised, or not I guess, no one has asked for more information before advocating "smokin" both "perps" with 45's akimbo. The situation seems very vague, is it dark or the middle of the day? Is this a crowded Wal-Mart parking lot or you are alone 20 miles from anywhere? How close is the store/building? How close is your car? Are these kids or pro-wrestler looking guys? There is far too little information presented for anyone to make a decision about the application of deadly force.

Why do the criminals in these threads always use such poor English? Perhaps we should carry hardcover copies of "The St. Martin's Handbook". Mine is 798 pages, only measures 8.5 x 6 inches and weighs about two pounds. One could administer quite the beating with it, then leave it with the criminal so he could improve his English skills! No concealed carry license required!:)

Presenting a knife and asking for your money is not justification to kill two people, or even one. Did they duct tape your mouth and tie your feet together prior to their request? Tell them no, loudly, and run if need be. (handicapped excepted) Is it the "manly" thing to do? No, but neither is being some guy's boyfriend in federal prison. Even in states where you are not required to retreat, why in the world would you risk everything by shooting someone unless it was absolutely the last option possible?

This the wrong board for my opinion, I realize, but I want to ask a few of you to re-read your posts and think about the situation. With very little to go on, many folks advocated shooting one, sometimes both people in question. I hope this is just internet bravado and not an indication of truly how you think, because; if so, you may just have a surprise coming if you ever do find yourself in a similar situation, and react the way you posted.

I'm off to Wal-Mart in a few minutes, so I'm going to make a makeshift holster for my St. Martin's Handbook, in case anyone needs any "English lessons" while I'm there....:cool:

Glenn E. Meyer
March 3, 2009, 03:31 PM
This is not the wrong board for suggesting something other than immediate shooting. Reasoned responses to a situation is what sophisticated training and discussion is about.

The arguments about compliance usually center on:

1. What is the acceptable risk level for any action and the evaluation of the consequences?

2. If compliance would lead to a better outcome, some people are offended by that as they feel compliance is a blow to their ego and world view of themselves.

3. That leads to posturing as compared to realistic discussion of risk.

If you factor out ego, then we can discuss what leads to a best practical outcome as compared to an ego driven outcome.

Brian Pfleuger
March 3, 2009, 03:37 PM
There is far too little information presented for anyone to make a decision about the application of deadly force.

I was operating under the assumption that, in this particular case, the OP had already decided that it was necessary to shoot the first BG and was curious about opinions on what to do about the second guy.


This the wrong board for my opinion...

Quite the contrary actually. Especially considering that you are apparently able to express yourself without abusing others.:)

David Armstrong
March 3, 2009, 07:09 PM
David is assuming that the wallet is going to be the only loss. That very well may be a fatal assumption.

David makes very few assumptions, and really doesn't like when people attribute assumptions to him that he hasn't made and would not make. No place has David assumed the wallet is going to be the only loss. David has suggested you try the easy way out first to see if that works. Please do not try to put words in David's mouth. Thank you.

David Armstrong
March 3, 2009, 07:14 PM
You can calculate the results for 1,000,000 incidents that have happened previously, but you can't predict with ANY certainty what THIS badguy is going to do THIS time. It doesn't work like that.
Actually, you can. That is the problem with people trying to discuss statistical analysis who apparently don't understand statistical analysis. You can make a prediction and you can do it with a very defined level of certainty. That doesn't mean you should ignore or disregard the outliers, it simply means you can make an informed decision on what is likely to happen, if you want to.
What they did doesn't matter, unless ALL of them were confronted by the SAME badguy(s) under the exact SAME conditions.
Again, that is just not an accurate statement.

nate45
March 3, 2009, 07:16 PM
You draw your .45 ACP and gun the knife wielder down. Then you tell the other one that you like him and thats why you decided to shoot him last.:p

David Armstrong
March 3, 2009, 07:18 PM
This the wrong board for my opinion, I realize,
Actually there are several here on this board that oppose the "shoot early, shoot often, and shoot whenever you can" mentality and regularly recommend a more reasoned and rational approach. Welcome aboard!

45Marlin carbine
March 3, 2009, 07:42 PM
when in a hurry to shoot always hold a little low on the target.

Double Naught Spy
March 3, 2009, 07:47 PM
There is far too little information presented for anyone to make a decision about the application of deadly force.

Let's see, there are two attackers and one is threatening you through the brandishing of a knife and telling you to give him the money?

Let's see, opportunity, ability, and intent. Yep, the necessary information is there for making a decision.

David makes very few assumptions, and really doesn't like when people attribute assumptions to him that he hasn't made and would not make. No place has David assumed the wallet is going to be the only loss. David has suggested you try the easy way out first to see if that works. Please do not try to put words in David's mouth. Thank you.

David assumes that trying the easy way out of compliance is prudent in a life threatening situation as per his suggestion that it be tried first. David then also assumes that if his compliance suggestion does not work that there will be time to re-evaluate the situation and come up with a secondary choice in time to save one's life.

I am suggesting there may not be time for such niceties being as the threat is established.

doh_312
March 3, 2009, 07:57 PM
I agree with the Spy. The first guy is gettin hot lead. While drawing and firing, as per training, I'll be putting distance between me and the BGs. I'll reassess the second guy. If he wants to back off and retreat then by all means, go and live. If he reaches for something on his person, or advances on me, he'll probably share the same fate as his buddy. I consider him a threat due to his associations, but he hasn't presented a weapon. This scenario strikes me as a parking lot situation, just me and the BGs no innocents in danger of bullet pass through. At least that is the way I imagine it so that is how I dealt with it.

Japle
March 3, 2009, 08:08 PM
Presenting a knife and asking for your money is not justification to kill two people, or even one. Did they duct tape your mouth and tie your feet together prior to their request? Tell them no, loudly, and run if need be. (handicapped excepted) Is it the "manly" thing to do? No, but neither is being some guy's boyfriend in federal prison. Even in states where you are not required to retreat, why in the world would you risk everything by shooting someone unless it was absolutely the last option possible?


While I have no desire to shoot anyone, someone who shows me a knife while demanding money has a real good chance of getting shot. He's certainly going to get a look at my gun.
If he doesn't back down IMMEDIATLY, in other words, if he continues to act in a hostile or threatening manner or advances on me, I'm going to shoot.

Run? Turn my back on someone who's threatening me with a knife? Not even if I were a track star.

His actions put him in that position. He made the decisions that led up to being on the wrong end of a gun. If he continues to make bad decisions, that's on him. I don't owe a violent criminal any consideration at all. I do owe it to my family to come home alive and unhurt.

I won't shoot if I don't have to, but it's up to the BG.

armsmaster270
March 3, 2009, 08:15 PM
If he is close enough to use the knife seems as if he is willing to use it he is going into a body bag. I would rather drop the hammer on this miscreant than see him stab an old lady a week later. If his buddy stays out of it he either walks or goes to jail.

OldMarksman
March 3, 2009, 08:22 PM
Let's see, opportunity, ability, and intent. Yep, the necessary information is there for making a decision.

That might be true if the thugs have approached a peace officer, for whom ability, opportunity, and jeopardy are sufficient.

For the citizen, there is the added factor: necessity.

Consider this:

http://www.useofforce.us/3aojp/

Preclusion
Preclusion is not so much an individual consideration as it is an all-encompassing lens through which to view your actions. More complex than the others, it is nevertheless just as important. It is the idea that, whatever the situation, you are expected to use force only as a last resort—that is, only when the circumstances preclude all other options.

In other words, even when the ability, opportunity, and jeopardy criteria are satisfied, and knowing that you must clearly do something to protect yourself, the use of force, particularly lethal force, may only be that “something” if you have no other safe options.

And this:

http://www.teddytactical.com/archive/MonthlyStudy/2006/02_StudyDay.htm

AOJ is the traditional model used by those who must defend themselves while completing their sworn duty obligation to confront VCA. A model more appropriate to the non-duty sworn Practitioner who is compelled through necessity to confront a VCA involves avoidance, disengagement escape and evade.


Now, I would not rely solely on compliance in a street situation, but tossing a wallet toward the attackers might diffuse the threat and if it did not, that fact would substantiate the need for deadly force while buying time.

Now, it could well be that shooting the armed perp without delay would seem necessary in the situation, depending on his actions, demeanor, distance, etc. Go for it if you must, but remember that what will follow for you will probably be the worst period of your life.

And remember that you will remain at risk legally from the criminal standpoint until and unless you are actually tried and acquitted, and that doesn't address civil liability or the risk of the perp's kid brother coming at you or yours for revenge, any time, any where.

Not for me if I can avoid it.

orionengnr
March 3, 2009, 08:28 PM
If you shoot the attacker with the knife and his buddy is just standing there then shooting him is murder, IMHO.

Opinion is right, and worth exactly what you paid.

Find out what your state law is, and act accordingly. In CA or NY, you may have to take the knife from the guy and cut your own throat to satisfy the bliss-ninnies.

In other places, you may be able to use the "reasonable person" model. Let's see, the "other guy" is at the very least an accessory before the fact, with means, motiive and opportunity.

Now that I am on the far side of 50, on the short side of 6', on the light side of 150 lbs and with a few "life-changing" surgeries behind me, H2H is not much of an option and running is not much of an option either. Fortunately, I no longer live in CA. Actually, it's not by luck, it's by choice. :)

hogdogs
March 3, 2009, 08:43 PM
"toss a fake wallet" "make like..."
Sorry folks i am no actor nor poker player... I call a spade a spade and expect the same from the offender. I will take you as genuine in your presentation until I see you are bluffing... I don't bluff and suck at "reading the tells" of a violent situation. Knife equals threat to life and limb the same as just bowing up in my face. I expect to be stuck or beaten and will retaliate with a wrath most cannot fathom. I am no bully nor karate kid but if past confrontation is relative I foresee me on your back with you in a rear choke with the backs of my thighs locking my arms padlock tight and at the same time pushing the back of your head and shoulders deeper into my clench... Short of caving in my head I cannot be shaken off...
Once out cold I will not release...
See... I am not a CCW carrier. Not a gun anyway... But lethal force is not limited to a pistol. If I have time the knife will be my first approach. Commando I am not... Actually I am scared to death of a butt whoopin, let alone a knife wound or GSW. But I am not afraid of any human and feel my mental state is more secure than many if not most folks. Non of these thugs are 100% prepared to be assaulted by a little unarmed man but they are ready to run you down like a lion after a wildebeest!
When faced off, even the baddest of predators realize that the prey may have an ace up their sleeve! I am a natural born predator as all humans were intended... Some choose to relinquish this status in exchange for the expectation that they are better off protected as prey animals...
Sorry to ramble but if this sounds goofy to you I am not able to apologize for that...
Brent

obxned
March 3, 2009, 10:14 PM
In the Conan movies, he often asks "Who dies first?" Here the answer is easy.

Hondo11
March 3, 2009, 10:34 PM
Actually, you can. That is the problem with people trying to discuss statistical analysis who apparently don't understand statistical analysis. You can make a prediction and you can do it with a very defined level of certainty. That doesn't mean you should ignore or disregard the outliers, it simply means you can make an informed decision on what is likely to happen, if you want to.

The problem with people making statistical analyses is when they try to apply them to things that are far to subjective in nature and far too influenced by things that aren't quantifiable. And when they always try to make things more complicated than they really are because they think that gives them an advantage in the argument.

You can calculate the percentage of times that a certain outcome had happened in the past, but that has absolutely no bearing on the actions/mindset/intent of THIS badguy at THIS time. None.

You can say that 87% of OTHER people who have complied with OTHER badguys had a favorable outcome, but you cannot say that you have an 87% chance of a favorable outcome if you comply because THIS badguy isn't THAT badguy and THIS situation isn't one of those other ones.

I have been the victim of an armed robbery 2 times in 2 consecutive days. Both badguys had priors and in their previous crimes, they injured (shot and stabbed) their victims, who did not resist. Apparently, had I complied, I would have fallen into the 13% two times in two days (assuming I lived to the 2nd day).

Yeah, you can use the numbers to look at overall outcomes, but there is no way to predict which guy you're going to get...the one who's in the 87% or one who's on the 13% side. You can say, "87% of people in the past have had a favorable outcome through compliance", but you can't take one specific incident and say, "There's an 87% chance that guy won't hurt you if you comply." You don't know which side of the statistical fence THAT badguy is on.

Take lottery drawings as an example. You can say that, "In the past 1000 drawings, 10% of the time the number 11 has been drawn as the first number." But that doesn't mean that there's a 10% chance that the number 11 will be drawn first in THIS drawing. There's a 1 in 50, or 2%, chance of that happening...assuming the numbers are 1-50.

Dr. Strangelove
March 3, 2009, 10:38 PM
(shakes head)

Folks, this is real life, not the movies or television. I stand by my post stating that someone merely showing you a knife and asking for your money in an open parking lot is not grounds for shooting that person. There are many other options before even drawing your weapon, starting with simply telling the knife wielder to go away.

The majority of posts on this topic have been responsible, but a few disappoint me. Please do some research and think a little about the position you are putting yourself into when you just draw and fire. Maybe they brought a knife to a gunfight, but you just brought a gun to a knife fight, and you had better be ready to explain why you just killed two people. Are you ready to lose your home, your land, your life's savings, even your freedom? What is your family going to do while you are being some bad man's love slave in a penal institution? (Sorry, couldn't resist that one...:o) Even if you win the criminal case, you may still lose the certain civil lawsuits brought by the decedents families.

There are no "good shoots", just unfortunate situations that do come down to bullets being the only answer.


Welcome aboard!

Welcome aboard the, err, board? Good funny!

hogdogs
March 3, 2009, 10:46 PM
Dr.strangelove, Simply ordering a florida driver out of his vehicle is grounds to be shot! No weapon needs be shown... If out of the vehicle (parking lot) and approached, I am full within my rights to use lethal force, if BG even insinuates he intends harm... For me to be found out of my bounds he better be quite a distance away... If he doesn't need to yell for me to hear him... he is close enuff for me to fear for my life... KNIFE OR NOT!!!! All he has to say is "*female dog* I will mess you up" and make forward progress and he is legally threatening my life or health! demand of money with weapon in hand or accompanying one who is, is also a treat to my life or health! Violent crimes are finally being seen as a threat to life and health rather than an occupation in florida!
Brent

hogdogs
March 3, 2009, 11:04 PM
Let me also add... say I shoot bg #1 and BG number 2 flees... he gets caught later... He can face FIRST DEGREE or SECOND DEGREE MURDER charges for his knife wielding buddies death at my hand... Nice they finally started putting us in control of our own survival and at the same time make it hold far higher legal ramifications for them.
Brent

Dr. Strangelove
March 3, 2009, 11:28 PM
Hogdogs,

First, I've been enjoying your postings for a while now, we need to trade posts in the hunting forum, not here. I've got a funny FL hog hunting story I might pm you later if you're interested. I'm not attacking you or anyone else personally, please don't think I am. [end of comments specifically to Hogdogs]

I moved here to Athens, GA after seven years in Bradenton, FL; I'm well aware of the Florida "no retreat" laws. I'm not arguing the legality or morality of shooting someone in the circumstances described, I'm not a lawyer or a preacher. I'm not even arguing right or wrong here, I'm just saying if you want to go around shooting folks, even legally justified, you had better be prepared to deal with the consequences.

The small minority of posters of the "guns a blazin" answer to any challenge (in an open parking lot? Seriously? Puuuutttt Dooowwn the remote. Back slooowly away from the television. No more action movies for a month, Mr. Mitty) [Points if you understood that reference] seem to rabidly defend their proposed actions. Have at it, blaze away, but understand that by doing so you are probably putting yourself more at risk than if you had behaved more responsibly. Escalating what could, in all probability, be avoided in the first place into deadly force is just irresponsible and foolish, even if it is legal.

nate45
March 4, 2009, 12:47 AM
I think you are taking things too far the opposite direction. Hopefully no one wants to shoot another human being, but I think you underestimate how fast someone could mortally wound you with a knife.

I would at least draw my hand gun and if they turned and ran away, I would let them go. However even the slightest menacing move in my direction would result in the person holding the deadly weapon being shot.

Are you aware of the 21 foot rule?

Do you have any experience seeing serious knife wounds?

Any one foolish enough, brave enough, crazy enough to try and rob someone with a knife is likely to try and cut them also.

Dr. Strangelove
March 4, 2009, 01:53 AM
Nate 45,

Yours was a reasonable and well thought out question, hopefully I will answer in the same manner.

The reaction you describe is a mature and well thought out response to the situation. Answering your questions, I am aware of the 21 foot rule, but I have no experience with serious knife wounds. Given the vagueness of the situation presented, the intent of the person with the knife is questionable. Have they made the choice to present a deadly weapon - sure. Does this mean they intend to use it? Maybe, maybe not. A couple of kids in daylight or well lit highly traveled parking lot? Tell them to "buzz off" and escalate further if needed. Certainly, being ready to draw your own weapon is reasonable. More capable and determined criminals in a lonely parking garage? Warn them as you draw a weapon, use it if they don't cooperate. There is just not enough information given in the original post to make an informed decision.

For everyone else:

I've taken up enough bandwidth in this thread, I thought briefly of posting my own, but there are countless scenarios in this section already, one more will only degenerate into the same "kill 'em" vs. "show restraint" this one has become. I obviously have different opinions than some, mine are no more right or wrong or important than yours. If anyone wants to discuss my opinion further in a mature manner, feel free to pm me. If it's an interesting debate, we can make a thread out of it. I'm not interested in debating endless scenarios or the "guns a blazin" type comments.

OldMarksman
March 4, 2009, 10:36 AM
Presenting a knife and asking for your money is not justification to kill two people, or even one.


The OP asked about the legal ramifications of shooting two people, and I think Peetzakiller offered some worthwhile thoughts earlier.

I disagree with your assertion that one is not justified in using deadly force against a robber with a knife, assuming that he is close to you.

That does not mean that I would do so except as a last resort. If he's close enough, my gun will be in my hand, and if he rushes, I just don't see an alternative to firing.

However, depending on the situation, the opportunity may present itself to toss a weighted money clip with, say, forty+ dollars in paper money his way while telling him to get back. If what the perp is after is money to buy drugs, gasoline, or food, that and the ominous little red laser dot may save the day. And the doomsday option remains if that doesn't work.

That's a lot more economical than getting into a situation in which you could be forced to come up with $25,000 to $100,000 in fees for lawyers and expert witnesses. And that way you'll still have your gun.

Even in states where you are not required to retreat, why in the world would you risk everything by shooting someone unless it was absolutely the last option possible?

For many people retreat is not reasonably possible anyway, but you are right about the risk. Suppose you fire and the man goes down. There's the evidence: (1) forensic evidence, including bullets and wounds--all that does is establish that you have shot someone, and it could work against your account of the incident; (2) the knife--that doesn't prove your story, but it should lend some credence. Perhaps there are witnesses; suppose the witnesses say, "I heard two shots and saw a man with a gun and a man on the ground." Won't help much. Maybe there was a security camera--perhaps helpful, perhaps not. There's your testimony--what makes that credible? Ever been cross-examined?

The point is, you do not enter the courtroom wearing a white hat. You have shot someone, and it's up to you to present evidence that your actions were justified. They may have been, but that's not enough.

And if the perp survives? There's his testimony-and you would probably be surprised how those guys clean up. I've been on juries, and one cannot distinguish between the good guy and the bad, or between the truthful and the liar, without evidence.

Now, maybe it won't go that far and maybe it will--but you will forever remain at risk from the criminal standpoint if it does not. And then there's "the rest of the story", and that's all downside.

David Armstrong
March 4, 2009, 11:58 AM
I am suggesting there may not be time for such niceties being as the threat is established.
That might be true, but in this scenario the BG has clearly established the idea that he is not going to attack you immediately. He is giving commands with an expectation they will be followed. Following those commands does not change the equation at all as your response time is still the same. As the scenario reads, the BG has not approached any closer, is not making additional threats, etc.
David assumes that trying the easy way out of compliance is prudent in a life threatening situation as per his suggestion that it be tried first.
Again, please do not put words in my mouth. I have made no such assumption. Please try to deal with what is actually said instead of making things up.

Milspec
March 4, 2009, 12:32 PM
I'd have to agree that it depends on the situation. If I could back away safely from both then that's what I'd do. If the second person moved to block my path he'd lose his friendly observer status and the "cornered cat" rules would apply... :D

Milspec

David Armstrong
March 4, 2009, 01:08 PM
You can calculate the percentage of times that a certain outcome had happened in the past, but that has absolutely no bearing on the actions/mindset/intent of THIS badguy at THIS time. None.
That is not how the analysis works. Look, you are trying to deny that you cannot do something that you do every day. Every day you make predictions about what people will do based on what people have done in the past. When you drive to work you base your actions on what other drivers have done in the past, you don't need to know what a specific driver did at this specific place. When you go to work I doubt that you prepare every day for a disgruntled worker or other person attacking the place and killing everyone. Why? Because you have looked at the past and are predicting certain behavior patterns of other people. A criminal is no different. You can make predictions, and the more you know the more accurate your prediction becomes. Will there be exceptions? Sure, but that doesn't change the basic premise.
You don't know which side of the statistical fence THAT badguy is on.
Sadly, using that logic, you need to draw down on anyone that gets within 21' of you and shoot those that do not go outside that distance, because you don't know whether that particular person is going to try to attack you or not. Now, of course, one doesn't do that because one makes predictions based on what most people do. When driving you don't konw which side of the statistical fence the other driver falls on, good driver or homicidal rad rage maniac, but you make a predeiction and your initial response is based on that until something occurs to modify the prediction.
And when they always try to make things more complicated than they really are because they think that gives them an advantage in the argument.
There is nothing complicated about it. Like I said, we all do it regularly in most other interactions with other people. Criminal interactions are no different. You can make predictions to guide your decision-making and your response. How accurate those predictions will be is up to each person. Why some try to argue that it doesn't occur when they do it every day is rather strange to me.

David Armstrong
March 4, 2009, 01:11 PM
I am no bully nor karate kid but if past confrontation is relative I foresee me on your back with you in a rear choke with the backs of my thighs locking my arms padlock tight and at the same time pushing the back of your head and shoulders deeper into my clench... Short of caving in my head I cannot be shaken off...
And BG #2 calmly and quietly slides 4" of blade into you. The end.:rolleyes:

David Armstrong
March 4, 2009, 01:15 PM
There are many other options before even drawing your weapon, starting with simply telling the knife wielder to go away.
Shame on you, Dr! Immediately turn in your Super Macho Man Giant Wienie Waver badge! How dare you even suggest something other than the most violent, destructive course of action possible!:mad:

Tennessee Gentleman
March 4, 2009, 01:26 PM
Sadly, using that logic, you need to draw down on anyone that gets within 21' of you and shoot those that do not go outside that distance, because you don't know whether that particular person is going to try to attack you or not.

Actually, that logic doesn't follow at all. The question posed by the OP states that the two have shown their intent to rob by force and have brandished a weapon. So, we are past whether or not the two are BGs, they are. The question is do you trust your life to statistical probability and comply or use another set of statistics, like the ones Gary Kleck has promulgated and resist with your firearm when he has shown that if you do you are less likely to be injured.

When you drive to work you base your actions on what other drivers have done in the past, you don't need to know what a specific driver did at this specific place.

Sure, until one crosses the center line and is barreling straight at me. Then what do I do? That is the question.

These discussions to me are kind of funny. I think most people might believe that the majority of robberies end without injury to the robbed person. However, that doesn't mean you will be one of the lucky ones when you get robbed. There is more to the encounter than just that overarching statistic or injured vs uninjured.

That's why I think rules of thumb that have been posted here are useful to help us see what the robber's intent might be and then if we get the chance end the encounter on our terms.

teeroux
March 4, 2009, 01:30 PM
Well if one of them is obviously there to harm you and the other is obviously there to help him they both have deadly intent shoot the most threatful and if the buddy runs let him run if he stays let him have it.

Hondo11
March 4, 2009, 01:45 PM
Sadly, using that logic, you need to draw down on anyone that gets within 21' of you and shoot those that do not go outside that distance, because you don't know whether that particular person is going to try to attack you or not.

Seriously? A person walking within 21' of you is hardly comparable to a person who has a weapon and has demanded your money. One could be anyone, the other is the guy jacking your wallet, demonstrating his intent and willingess to take it by force or threat of force.

The bottom line is that what OTHER people hve done in the past, in THEIR respective incidents, has ZERO bearing on what THIS guy will do in THIS instance. It's EXACTLY like the lottery numbers. Just because the number 10 has been drawn first in 10 of the last 100 drawings doesn't mean that there is more than a 1 in 50 (2%) chance that it'll be drawn first in the current drawing. They are completely independent of each other.

YOU have made the argument that compliance should be the first option because of statistics that say 87% of people who have complied have been unharmed. That's a flawed argument for the reasons stated above.

I have not argued that compliance is not a good option. I have argued that you can't say it should be tried first because of what's happened in the past. I have argued that each incident is, in essence, in a vacuum, and should be handled however is best for THAT incident. If that means compliance, then fine. If that means an El Prez on three armd attackers, then fine. There is no best option. There is only a best option for THAT SPECIFIC situation.

I'm not the "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" type. As I said, I have been the victim of 2 Aggravated Robberies on 2 consecutive days. I was armed, but didn't shoot either suspect. I will just as quickly shoot or NOT shoot, depending on what's needed. And I don't determine when shooting is required. The badguy does.

Japle
March 4, 2009, 01:48 PM
David, I know what you mean when you say, "Look, you are trying to deny that you cannot do something that you do every day. Every day you make predictions about what people will do based on what people have done in the past". That may be true, but in those everyday cases, your life usually isn't at stake.

It's like trying to box by statistically predicting your opponent's next move based on his past punching pattern. You expect a left hook, so you put up a block for a left hook. It gets even worse if you're basing your prediction on all boxers, not just the guy you're facing.

There's an old military expression: No battle plan survives contact with the enemy!
In a fight, it's foolish to act on what you think your enemy's intentions are. You can't know. He might not intend to hurt you. He might not intend to leave a living witness. He might change his mind. He might react to what you do in a way you'll consider insane. He might be insane.

Any credible close-range threat of death or serious bodily harm may be legally and morally met with deadly force in my state and most others.

Armed robbery is a dangerous profession. The cops know that. The courts know that. The robber should know that.

Hondo11
March 4, 2009, 02:05 PM
Presenting a knife and asking for your money is not justification to kill two people, or even one.
Asking for your money? You make it sound so innocent. If you don't think that someone using a deadly weapon to commit a violent act against you is justification for shooting them, then what exactly do you think IS?

I'm not talking about "best options" or "better ways" to handle it... I'm not advocating that everyone should just start blasting. I'm just asking how far someone has to go before you think you're justified in shooting them? Do they have to hurt you first? Hurt your family first? I'm curious.

David Armstrong
March 4, 2009, 03:31 PM
Seriously? A person walking within 21' of you is hardly comparable to a person who has a weapon and has demanded your money.
Let me quote: "You don't know which side of the statistical fence THAT badguy is on." and then point out you don't know which side of the statistical fence the person walking near you is on either. Yet you make a decision based on previous information has indicated.
The bottom line is that what OTHER people hve done in the past, in THEIR respective incidents, has ZERO bearing on what THIS guy will do in THIS instance.
Again, using that reasoning, the fact that hundreds of people have safely passed you by means absolutely nothing in deciding if you should shoot the next guy that comes within 21' of you. After all, what other people have done in the past has zero bearing on what the next guy will do, right?
One could be anyone,...
Exactly, one could be anyone, EVEN THAT OTHER GUY! Yet you don't initially respond to everyone as that other guy because the odds are they are not.
YOU have made the argument that compliance should be the first option because of statistics that say 87% of people who have complied have been unharmed. That's a flawed argument for the reasons stated above.

Again, you are making things up instead of dealing with what has been said. I have not said anything about "...compliance should be your first option because..." I believe there are multiple reasons to consider compliance as the preferred response when appropriate. I have never argued that compliance should always be the first option. I can think of plenty of scenarios where compliance is a silly option, or even a dangerous option. The flaw is that you are trying to attack an argument that has not been made.
I have argued that you can't say it should be tried first because of what's happened in the past.
Ummm, trying compliance after the event sort of defeats the purpose of it all.
I have argued that each incident is, in essence, in a vacuum, and should be handled however is best for THAT incident.
And I have suggested that is not accurate, as they do not operate in a vacuum. There are norms and expectations that one can consider, and there are variations on those norms and expectations that can be considered.
And I don't determine when shooting is required. The badguy does.
I don't let BG's decide what I will do or when I will do it. That is under my control.

David Armstrong
March 4, 2009, 03:47 PM
That may be true, but in those everyday cases, your life usually isn't at stake.
I'm not sure why the stakes would change the accuracy of the statement. We are talking about understanding and knowledge and how to use them to your advantage in an encounter. The stakes might change, but how one goes through the process (or not) doesn't change.
It's like trying to box by statistically predicting your opponent's next move based on his past punching pattern.
But you are not doing that. You are using what you have learned about your opponent's past punching pattern to help you formulate the best response to this fight. If you know that 80% of the time when your opponent throws a left jab-right hook combination that he then steps to his left, you've got some knowledge that you can use to help you when he throws that combo at you. If you know that your opponent is short-winded and has trouble going the distance, that can help you figure out what strategy is best for you. Might not work every time, but it is something that can be predicted with a certain level of accuracy.
There's an old military expression: No battle plan survives contact with the enemy!
And yet the military still bases battle plans on predicting what someone will do and predicting what the likelihood is of certain responses once the battle is engaged.
Any credible close-range threat of death or serious bodily harm may be legally and morally met with deadly force in my state and most others.
Agreed, but just because it can doesn't mean it must, or even that it should. There are other options, and trying to figure out which options cause the least loss of resources for you is a good thing, I think. If giving the BG $20 means I don't have to give my lawyer $2,000 it seems like a worthwhile trade-off to me. If I give the BG $20 and it doesn't work, I really haven't lost anything. I can shoot him just as dead after as I could before. It's just that one way might save me $2,000.

Hondo11
March 4, 2009, 04:00 PM
David, your argument is a red herring. Anyone with any sense can see that, and some have already pointed it out. Not once in your 1700+ posts have I ever seen you budge from your high horse (granted, I haven't read them all, but I think it's a safe bet). So I'll just assume that no matter how logical and simple of an argument someone puts forth, you'll just throw out a bunch of straw men if you don't agree with it, in hopes that people will be convinced. I think I will save myself the trouble and just pass. Have a good one.

But you are not doing that. You are using what you have learned about your opponent's past punching pattern to help you formulate the best response to this fight. If you know that 80% of the time when your opponent throws a left jab-right hook combination that he then steps to his left, you've got some knowledge that you can use to help you when he throws that combo at you. If you know that your opponent is short-winded and has trouble going the distance, that can help you figure out what strategy is best for you. Might not work every time, but it is something that can be predicted with a certain level of accuracy.


Again, your analogy (albeit his first) doesn't apply. It would apply if you only talking about ONE badguy. If you knew that THAT badguy lets victims leave unharmed if they comply 9 times out of 10, then yeah, you could use the numbers to formulate your response...for THAT badguy. But you've suggested that because 87% of the time, the victim is unharmed when he complies, then you're 87% safer with compliance. That's like suggesting that because 9 of the last 10 boxers you faced threw a left jab-right hook combo and then stepped left, then the 11th boxer you face has a 90% chance of doing the same. That's absurd. The 11th boxer has nothing to do with the first 10. And the badguy that is robbing you today has nothing to do with the ones in the stat books.

Again, you are making things up instead of dealing with what has been said. I have not said anything about "...compliance should be your first option because..." I believe there are multiple reasons to consider compliance as the preferred response when appropriate. I have never argued that compliance should always be the first option. I can think of plenty of scenarios where compliance is a silly option, or even a dangerous option. The flaw is that you are trying to attack an argument that has not been made.


And yes, you have made the argument that compliance should be the primary response and you based your argument (at least a large portion of it) on the 87%/13% statistics. It's come up in multiple threads. On page 2 of this thread, while not referencing the statistics reasoning you've used before, you did say that compliance should be the "normal, default response."

armsmaster270
March 4, 2009, 04:09 PM
Sorry I've been there and he went down, it wasn't over money but trying to escape through me with a knife.

rugerdawg
March 4, 2009, 04:16 PM
If I am approached by two bg's intent on robbing or harming me and I have the opportunity to draw my gun and defend myself...there will be two dead guys waiting for body bags when the police arrive...and there will not be some lying scum sucking a-hole left to lie to anyone. Case closed.

Skans
March 4, 2009, 04:40 PM
Quckly shoot to kill them both, if at all possible. What? You want to give the guys a "fighting chance" to pull their guns out first?

OldMarksman
March 4, 2009, 05:00 PM
If I am approached by two bg's intent on robbing or harming me and I have the opportunity to draw my gun and defend myself...there will be two dead guys waiting for body bags when the police arrive...and there will not be some lying scum sucking a-hole left to lie to anyone. Case closed.

No, that's just the beginning.

The authorities arrive and you tell them that you are victim and will press charges, point out assailants and the knife, and point out any witnesses. After you have conferred with counsel, he transmits your story that the two people tried to rob you. The fact that you have given your story should not give you any expectation that you will be regarded as "the good guy" and the others as "bad guys" at that point.

Detectives then collect evidence--forensic and otherwise-- and interview witnesses, and the prosecutor ultimately makes a charging decision.

In the majority of cases at least one of the perps will survive, but that may not matter.

The presence of one knife and the fact that two people have been shot may not help you regarding the charging decision. Remember, it is now an established fact that you have used deadly force and perhaps committed homicide. What is left to decide is whether you were justified in shooting two people, one whom at least had a knife with him. By the way, that was the OPs origininal question.

Absent some pretty credible statements from favorable witnesses that support your story and indicate that the unarmed man constituted a serious, imminent threat at the time you fired, you may be on rather shaky ground. And from that point on, your fate is entirely out of your hands.

That's the way it is, and it's been that way since fair judicial systems first started trying murder cases.

Quckly shoot to kill them both, if at all possible.

See above.

Japle
March 4, 2009, 08:27 PM
Let's get back to the original question:
"Let's say there's two robbers that stop you in a parking lot. one displaying a knife with the cliche "gimme yo money!" ... do you treat them as one threat and shoot at both (disparity of force), can you safely assume both are armed from a legal standpoint?"

If the robber stops you, he's got to be close enough to be a threat. Otherwise, you'd have no reason to stop.

If he's that close, IMNSHO, shooting the knife man is justified. Shooting the other guy isn't justified just because he's part of the crime. If he continues the attack, that's a different story.

All this has been said before. Some don't agree and that's their right.
David will argue and I wish him well if he's ever in a situation like this.

Personally, as I've said before, I feel have no obligation to put myself in peril to spare an armed robber. He chose his path and has to accept the danger he'll find on that path. My path will lead me home to my family if I have any choice about it.

David Armstrong
March 4, 2009, 08:52 PM
David, your argument is a red herring.
Hondo, your argument is a red herring. Gee, see how easy it is to toss stuff like that out without anything to support it? Your claim is that you cannot predict with any certainty what someone will do in a given situation. I point out that you do it every day on a regular basis. I note you haven't disagreed with that, only tried to repeat that it doesn't apply in a particular situation without anything to support your claim other than you keep saying it.
Again, your analogy (albeit his first) doesn't apply.
If you want to argue applicability, argue with him. I just deal with the material provided.
But you've suggested that because 87% of the time, the victim is unharmed when he complies, then you're 87% safer with compliance.
Talk about a red herring! Once again you have claimed a position for me that I do not take or have. Gets sort of old repeating it, but please, don't put words in my mouth. Try to respond to what is said instead of making stuff up.
And yes, you have made the argument that compliance should be the primary response and you based your argument (at least a large portion of it) on the 87%/13% statistics.
One would think that if I had actually said that you would be able to direct us to it. If you want to know why I think compliance should be the normal default response (my actual position) you might try asking me instead of making stuff up. In fact, let's have a little challenge...please find ANYWHERE I have said that compliance should always be the the first response based on an 87%/13% statistic. You can't, and for you to continue to claim that I have is dishonest.
On page 2 of this thread, while not referencing the statistics reasoning you've used before, you did say that compliance should be the "normal, default response."
Which is quite different than what you keep claiming I have said. I note you also conveniently left out the rest of the statement, whichs was "...but it should not prohibit other responses as appropriate if it does not work."

David Armstrong
March 4, 2009, 08:58 PM
David will argue and I wish him well if he's ever in a situation like this.
Gets old, but please stop claiming things about David that are not true. David will not argue with that. David will agree that there is justification given the scenario as you modified it to shoot the first BG. Where David would disagree is if one should shoot him, not if you are justified to do so.

Erik
March 4, 2009, 09:29 PM
"Let's say there's two robbers that stop you in a parking lot. one displaying a knife with the cliche "gimme yo money!" ... do you treat them as one threat and shoot at both (disparity of force), can you safely assume both are armed from a legal standpoint?"

No, but the legal justification to use lethal force is not defined by if you recognize someone has a weapon or not. What are the threat indicators and how do they relate to the use of force options available? Granted, recognizing a displayed weapon is a glaring threat indicator.

"I could see a prosecutor saying "well yeah, you could shoot the guy with the gun/knife, but the other guy was unarmed""

I can see lawyers saying all sorts of things.

"thoughts?"
You can either recognize and articulate existing threat indicators or not. They either allow you to use a given level of force, or they do not. Even then, you do not necessarily have to use a given level of force when allowed, nor it it necessarily the best course of action.

"experiences?"
Some. No shootings yet.

So that puts me in the "shoot them if you can justify it and it is your best course of action" category. There's a lot of assumptions in that particular category, though.

supergas452M
March 4, 2009, 10:25 PM
If you want to know why I think compliance should be the normal default response (my actual position) you might try asking me instead of making stuff up.

I'm not asking, I really dont care. You just go on being compliant if it works for you.

As I stated earlier, my response would be utterly different.

My question to you is this...
DO you carry a concealed weapon?
Because if you do and your default response is to be compliant and you are ever attacked by BG's with evil intent, you are likely to be killed with your own gun.

David Armstrong
March 4, 2009, 11:57 PM
My question to you is this...
DO you carry a concealed weapon?
Yes, and have done so for about 30 years now.
Because if you do and your default response is to be compliant and you are ever attacked by BG's with evil intent, you are likely to be killed with your own gun.
That is just downright silly. All BGs, pretty much by definition, attack with evil intent, and folks regularly comply without being killed at all, much less with their own gun. Perhaps you could share with us some real examples where someone complied then was killed with their own gun? Or is this just more made-up stuff from the creative fiction area?

David Armstrong
March 4, 2009, 11:59 PM
They either allow you to use a given level of force, or they do not. Even then, you do not necessarily have to use a given level of force when allowed, nor it it necessarily the best course of action.
Well said.

Hondo11
March 5, 2009, 03:51 AM
Quote:
David, your argument is a red herring.

Hondo, your argument is a red herring. Gee, see how easy it is to toss stuff like that out without anything to support it? Your claim is that you cannot predict with any certainty what someone will do in a given situation. I point out that you do it every day on a regular basis. I note you haven't disagreed with that, only tried to repeat that it doesn't apply in a particular situation without anything to support your claim other than you keep saying it.


You're right. I said that when confronted by someone who is showing their intent and willingness to commit a violent act against you, that you don't know where THAT guy will fall statistically (the ones who won't hurt you or the ones who will). You tried to say that using that logic, you should shoot any random person who gets within 21' because you don't know what their intentions are. Yep, those are the same thing. You're right. Your argument isn't the red herring. My bad.

If you want to argue applicability, argue with him. I just deal with the material provided.

YOUR twist on the boxing analogy was that if your opponent does a particular series of moves a high percentage of the time, then you can use that to predict what he'll do next time. I said that doesn't apply because when you're confronted by a random badguy in a parking lot, you don't know what HE has done in the past. You know that out of a group of 1,234,567 badguys, 87% of them didn't hurt the victim if they complied. But you don't know that THIS badguy didn't hurt the victim 87% of the time if they complied. He might have hurt his victims 100% of the time. Using stats for what a huge number of people have done, as a group, has no bearing on what ONE of them has done or might do.

Talk about a red herring! Once again you have claimed a position for me that I do not take or have. Gets sort of old repeating it, but please, don't put words in my mouth. Try to respond to what is said instead of making stuff up.

One would think that if I had actually said that you would be able to direct us to it. If you want to know why I think compliance should be the normal default response (my actual position) you might try asking me instead of making stuff up. In fact, let's have a little challenge...please find ANYWHERE I have said that compliance should always be the the first response based on an 87%/13% statistic. You can't, and for you to continue to claim that I have is dishonest.

You have used those stats in numerous threads to argue your position for compliance. I've read it, everyone else has read it, it's there. And don't use the word "dishonest" when you're referring to me. That's a stronger word than you might realize (or maybe you do) and I wouldn't be throwing it around so much.

Which is quite different than what you keep claiming I have said. I note you also conveniently left out the rest of the statement, whichs was "...but it should not prohibit other responses as appropriate if it does not work."

You stated that you have NEVER said compliance should be the first option. I quoted where you said that it should be the "Normal, default response". What comes after the comma doesn't matter. (I happen to actually agree with what comes after the comma, but it's not the relevant part of the sentence.) Simply, you said you have never said that, so I pointed out where you had. But now you'll probably say that "first option" and "normal, default response" aren't the same thing and that I was dishonest for saying so.

I'm thinking that the hijack has gone on long enough and that I have contributed to it, so I'll apologize to everyone else and not make another post in this thread.

Japle
March 5, 2009, 08:43 AM
Compliance is certainly an option (continuing the thread hijack), but I don’t believe it’s a good one and here’s why:

Trusting an armed robber to have your best interests at heart, in other words, to be willing to leave a live witness behind him rather than a dead victim, is irrational. To quote Nessus, “Such trust in another is insane”. That’s my opinion. People have survived by being compliant. But not all of them.

Among the general population, somewhere between 1% and 2% are psychopaths. I read that somewhere, so it must be true.
Among the armed robber population, that percentage is significantly higher. That’s just a guess, but I think it’s a reasonable one.

When you want a Hershey’s Kiss, you have to take off the little foil wrapper. When you get it off, what do you do with it? You throw it away. Why? Because it has no value.
To millions of psychopaths in this country, you’re that little foil wrapper. You’re holding what they want. Once they have it, you have no value. To them, killing you is like throwing away a candy wrapper. They don’t think twice about it.

Now the question is, are you facing a psychopath? How can you tell?
Ted Bundy seemed like a nice guy. So did Al Bundy. Ted was a psychopath and Al was just a sociopath. Personally, I wouldn’t trust either of them in a dark parking lot with a knife. In the situation presented by the OP, I’d shoot either one of them. I wouldn’t shoot the partner, though, assuming he gave up or ran away.

Anyone who wants to trust an armed robber is welcome to do so.
Just remember, there may be a Darwin Award waiting with your name on it.

Skans
March 5, 2009, 09:32 AM
The presence of one knife and the fact that two people have been shot may not help you regarding the charging decision. Remember, it is now an established fact that you have used deadly force and perhaps committed homicide. What is left to decide is whether you were justified in shooting two people, one whom at least had a knife with him. By the way, that was the OPs origininal question.

Absent some pretty credible statements from favorable witnesses that support your story and indicate that the unarmed man constituted a serious, imminent threat at the time you fired, you may be on rather shaky ground. And from that point on, your fate is entirely out of your hands.



The original post said: "two robbers that stop you in a parking lot. one displaying a knife with the cliche "gimme yo money!"

They are together. I am outnumbered. They are both robbers acting in concert. They have demanded money. One is brandishing a knife coupled with "gimme yo money" indicates an iminent threat of at least agrivated battery, possibly murder if you don't do what he says.

I stick by what I said - I would shoot to kill both of them, under the scenario presented. I would shoot the guy with the knife first, and if the other guy was still facing me in a threatening manner I would shoo to kill him too. If he surrenders, or runs away, then I'm done - he lives. If I get charged - so be it, let the prosecutor try to make that case before a jury. I highly doubt it would ever get to a jury.

OldMarksman
March 5, 2009, 11:00 AM
The original post said: "two robbers that stop you in a parking lot. one displaying a knife with the cliche "gimme yo money!"

Yep, that's what it said.

That's about what every shooter will say happened.

Absent credible, favorable witness testimony, that may not be what the jury believes, however. Consider the likelihood that the only witnesses only turned their attention to you after hearing the shots and cannot substantiate that part of your story.

They are together. I am outnumbered.

That would raise your level of fear and it may convince the jury. Or it may not. Did you read Peetzakiller's analysis?

Disparity of force changes millisecond by millisecond. Two guys with a knife versus one innocent? Yep, disparity of force. One defender with a gun, a disabled or dead knifer and his unarmed buddy standing there with wet pants. The entire situation has changed. Shooting a man who is posing no threat is murder. It doesn't matter what he was doing or intending to do 2 seconds ago. It matters what he's doing RIGHT NOW. Shoot him before he threatens you and YOU are the BG. NOW, which side has a disparity of force? Now who is the attacker?


http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3342950&postcount=39

So, you may be acquitted of murdering the guy with the knife, and convicted for the second killing--The OP's question. No guarantees either way.

They are both robbers acting in concert. They have demanded money.

Certainly appears that way, but it is an assumption. Wouldn't it be something if the prosecution demonstrated that they had just met and one was giving a ride to the other?

And of course the only evidence that either one did in fact demand money may be your word. Don't assume that for some reason you will be automatically seen as the good guy.

I stick by what I said - I would shoot to kill both of them, under the scenario presented.

Any reasonable person may think it necessary to shoot both, but then there's the burden of presenting exculpatory evidence. By the way, it's shoot to stop. Saying aotherwise in advance could create a mountain of problems for your defense. Could help establish mens rea.

I would shoot the guy with the knife first, and if the other guy was still facing me in a threatening manner I would shoot to kill him too.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that having someone who is unarmed "face you in a threatening manner" is justification for using deadly force, but believe me, it isn't.

If I get charged - so be it, let the prosecutor try to make that case before a jury.

That's the way the system works.

Could cost you a fortune--say, $25,000 to six times that. And he might well succeed.

I highly doubt it would ever get to a jury.

Ever is a long time! There's no statute of limitations, and a future DA trying to get re-elected may have a lot of motive to go after the guy who shot an unarmed man.

There's also the civil jury. In that case the motivation is the contingency fee. And the burden of proof for the plaintiff represents a much lower chinning bar. That could cost you more than you have. Consider your future standard of living.

It may well be that shooting first is the only safe alternative. You stay alive that way, but you enter into a very bad period of your life no matter what happens. It may be that shooting both men seems necessary to you at the time but that could be a lot harder to defend in either a criminal or a civil proceeding.

I'm not one who would trust in compliance, but tossing a money clip while training the laser sight on the perp and yelling for him to take the money and get away non could be by far the best reaction.

If it doesn't work, you can still shoot. And if it does you're out a miniscule investment and your gun isn't taken as evidence.

David Armstrong
March 5, 2009, 11:02 AM
Yep, those are the same thing. You're right.
Very good. If your argument is that one cannot predict what a person will do based on stats for others people in one situation you have to logically carry that argument to other situations dealing with human behavior.
I said that doesn't apply because when you're confronted by a random badguy in a parking lot, you don't know what HE has done in the past.
Doesn't matter. Just like when you are confronted by a random driver on the road, or a random person walking near you, you don't know what HE has done in the past either. Yet you can still make some predictions about what he will do.
Using stats for what a huge number of people have done, as a group, has no bearing on what ONE of them has done or might do.
So what? That is not what you use the info for, and that is where you keep making your mistake. You use the stats for figuring out what is the best way for you to get through the incident, based on what is likely to occur as determined by the information available to you. To stay with the auto, all your experience with other drivers has no bearing on what any one of them might do, but it still gives you the ability to make (hopefully) informed decisions on what to do as you are in traffic to safely get to your destination.
You have used those stats in numerous threads to argue your position for compliance.
But that is not what you keep claiming. Your claim is that I "have made the argument that compliance should be the primary response and you based your argument (at least a large portion of it) on the 87%/13% statistics." That is not accurate
And don't use the word "dishonest" when you're referring to me.
See above. You have repeatedly distorted my position. I have told you that repeatedly, and yet you continue to disseminate the misinformation. Don't put words in my mouth, don't make things up and say I said them, do not claim I have taken positions that I have not taken.
You stated that you have NEVER said compliance should be the first option. I quoted where you said that it should be the "Normal, default response". What comes after the comma doesn't matter.
Of course it matters. That is more of that distortion you keep practicing.
Simply, you said you have never said that, so I pointed out where you had. But now you'll probably say that "first option" and "normal, default response" aren't the same thing and that I was dishonest for saying so.

You called it. By your own admission you have claimed something for me that I did not say. You changed "normal default response" to "first option." And yes, they are not the same. Since you do not understand the difference, perhaps you should try to stick with what was actually said instead of making stuff up again.

David Armstrong
March 5, 2009, 11:16 AM
Trusting an armed robber to have your best interests at heart, in other words, to be willing to leave a live witness behind him rather than a dead victim, is irrational.
Only if you don't understand armed robbers. Their goal is robbery, not murder. They get what they want through compliance far easier than through murder. Murder gets a lot more LE attention than robbery, and muder tends to create victims with a greater tendency to fight back. A live witness doesn't mean much to a robber, they leave them behind most of the time.
Anyone who wants to trust an armed robber is welcome to do so.
I don't think anyone is saying to trust an armed robber. What some are saying is that you should try to minimize the danger and loss to you and that you can use knowledge to enhance that effort. Compliance is one tool to that end and should be tried when appropriate. What many seem to miss is that compliance has the beauty of allowing several other options to be used if it does not work, and if it works it will likely result in the smallest amount of lost resources. As OldMarksman said, "If it doesn't work, you can still shoot. And if it does you're out a miniscule investment and your gun isn't taken as evidence."

OldMarksman
March 5, 2009, 11:23 AM
I don't think anyone is saying to trust an armed robber. What some are saying is that you should try to minimize the danger and loss to you and that you can use knowledge to enhance that effort. Compliance is one tool to that end and should be tried when appropriate. What many seem to miss is that compliance has the beauty of allowing several other options to be used if it does not work, and if it works it will likely result in the smallest amount of lost resources.

That certainly describes my position accurately.

Double Naught Spy
March 5, 2009, 01:30 PM
Only if you don't understand armed robbers. Their goal is robbery, not murder.

Except in 13% of the cases where they harm people in spite of being fully compliant.

Gee, how many folks here "understand" armed robbers well enough to gamble on their lives that compliance will be enough to keep the robber from harming them?

Tennessee Gentleman
March 5, 2009, 02:04 PM
That certainly describes my position accurately.

OldMarksman, you seem to be discussing this one reasonably so let me ask you a few questions. First of all let me say that I generally find these threads tiresome as they degenerate into "Kill 'em dead!" or "Studies show!" or some other thing.

Going back to Hondo's and Japle may I put forth (on their behalf) that why we may not be trusting the robber if we are using statistics from some study then aren't we trusting those statistics with our fate?

Now to the questions.

In the OP the BGs have approached you with a knife and you are armed with a gun. So, from the start you have the superior weapon to their knife.

Would you comply, give up your advantage and trust the "statistics" to keep you safe?

Would you feel a greater risk from prosecution and civil tort or the BG in front of you with a knife?

If you say (as some have) that the primary goal of the robber is to rob how would you know if he wanted more than your money?

Would that be when he stabbed or shot you?

What rules of thumb could we use to determine the intent of the robber (sometimes we all know some robbers don't like to leave witnesses) and then decide to use deadly force?

How much time do you think you will have to sort through the options?

If you have the advantage, either in weaponry or surprise, and you are legally justified would it be better to comply or use force against the attacker?

When speaking of statistics there is a pretty reputable guy named Gary Kleck who has published some statistics himself. I can give you cites if you want them. Kleck says that when civilians use their guns first during an attack (rather than waiting until they are injured) their chance of escaping unharmed are very very high.

What do you think about that?

Finally, this seems to be the choice.

If you comply with the robber the best thing that can happen to you is that you lose your money, your gun if you are carrying and he finds it, some intense stress and perhaps some pride. The worst that could happen is that you are killed or seriously injured.

If you fight, the best thing that can happen is that you escape the encounter with your health, life and property. The worst thing that can happen (and I am using Kleck's conclusions) is that you might face prosecution legal or civil which you can fight over time and suffer some stress related to the incident.

Do you agree? Which would you choose?

hogdogs
March 5, 2009, 02:09 PM
Lets not forget that many "gangs" want the prospect to commit a violent crime to prove them self... The robbery may just be a means to get the "vic" to face off long enuff to get gutted!
fight or flight is for prey animals... I prefer fight or fight harder...:o
Brent

OldMarksman
March 5, 2009, 05:30 PM
Would you comply, give up your advantage and trust the "statistics" to keep you safe?

Absolutely not! My gun would be drawn as quickly as I took out the money clip. That gives up no advantage and does not rely on trust.

Would you feel a greater risk from prosecution and civil tort or the BG in front of you with a knife?

The latter, as long as he remained a threat. After the fact, things will change, the extent of which change will probably depend almost entirely on the presence or absence of credible favorable witnesses who will be willing to testify in my behalf when the time comes.

If you say (as some have) that the primary goal of the robber is to rob how would you know if he wanted more than your money?

Would that be when he stabbed or shot you?

First question (how): If he did not immediately take the money and depart.

Second question (when). No.

What rules of thumb could we use to determine the intent of the robber (sometimes we all know some robbers don't like to leave witnesses) and then decide to use deadly force?

The direction of his travel and his actions in response to your telling him to back off.

How much time do you think you will have to sort through the options?

Very little indeed. Study the Tueller drill.

My assumption is that if he demands money, rather than simply running at you with the knife, he will wait for a response, and that you can use that time to throw him a money clip and draw down on him. No time wasted. If the clip lands behind him you actually have more time, if he picks it up.

If he does not you have your answer.

When speaking of statistics there is a pretty reputable guy named Gary Kleck who has published some statistics himself. I can give you cites if you want them. Kleck says that when civilians use their guns first during an attack (rather than waiting until they are injured) their chance of escaping unharmed are very very high.

What do you think about that?

Sounds reasonable but irrelevant. At no time have I advocated waiting until sustaining an injury.

If you comply with the robber the best thing that can happen to you is that you lose your money, your gun if you are carrying and he finds it, some intense stress and perhaps some pride. The worst that could happen is that you are killed or seriously injured.

If you fight, the best thing that can happen is that you escape the encounter with your health, life and property. The worst thing that can happen (and I am using Kleck's conclusions) is that you might face prosecution legal or civil which you can fight over time and suffer some stress related to the incident.

Do you agree?

Almost. The worst thing that can happen if you shoot is loss of freedom and your personal fortune, and a permanent criminal record. A little different from suffering "some stress related to the incident", I think. You can fight, but your fate is entirely in the hands of others.

Which would you choose?

Neither.

Read my post again.

I'm not one who would trust in compliance, but tossing a money clip while training the laser sight on the perp and yelling for him to take the money and get away now could be by far the best reaction.

If it doesn't work, you can still shoot. And if it does you're out a miniscule investment and your gun isn't taken as evidence.

Now, whether you have the luxury of that strategy will be situation dependent. If he's, say, fifteen or twenty feet away and you can add some distance, it should work, and it's no less risky than firing first.

If he's already within slashing range you may not want to delay getting a couple of shots into center body mass.

pax
March 5, 2009, 05:53 PM
TG ~

I'll play. ;)

If you comply with the robber the best thing that can happen to you is that you lose your money, your gun if you are carrying and he finds it, some intense stress and perhaps some pride. The worst that could happen is that you are killed or seriously injured.

If you fight, the best thing that can happen is that you escape the encounter with your health, life and property. The worst thing that can happen (and I am using Kleck's conclusions) is that you might face prosecution legal or civil which you can fight over time and suffer some stress related to the incident.

No, I don't agree.

If you comply, the best thing that can happen is you lose your money.

If you comply, the worst thing that can happen is that you are slowly tortured to death, raped repeatedly over a period of days or weeks, used as a sick toy for a psychopath until you eventually die, alone and in agony -- and your body is never found to bring closure to your family who go to their graves wondering what happened to you, if you abandoned them, if you are dead or alive, if you even loved them at all.

If you don't comply, the best that can happen is that you walk away with life, property, and dignity intact.

If you don't comply, the worst that can happen is that you die from blood loss when the attacker shoots or stabs you (but at least your family knows where your body is). Next worse is that you spend the rest of your life in jail, and both shame & bankrupt your family getting there.

Comparing the worst-case scenarios, I'd rather die quickly from blood loss, or spend my life in jail and bankrupt my family, than to spend the last days or weeks of my life as a toy for a psychopath. YMMV.

Oh, and I'm arrogant enough to believe I can avoid doing anything to land me permanently in jail as I defend myself anyway.

(Are any of these outcomes likely? Of course not. The vast majority of people go through life without ever being attacked at all, let alone encountering the worst of the worst. It's not the odds that bother me here. It's the stakes.)

pax

David Armstrong
March 5, 2009, 06:04 PM
What some seem to keep missing is that compliance is not an "only" option nor does it end what you can do. Compliance is but one step in a series, and does not prohibit further steps. If I comply with the demand to give the BG my money it does not obligate me to then comply with his demands to do anything else. If I offer initial compliance and it doesn't work, NOTHING HAS CHANGED regarding my ability to respond.

pax
March 5, 2009, 06:21 PM
If I offer initial compliance and it doesn't work, NOTHING HAS CHANGED regarding my ability to respond.

David,

That's a nice theory but not congruent with reality in many cases. The fact is that at the very beginning of the incident, as it first starts to unfold and before the BG has total control of the situation, there is usually a response window where sudden, decisive, determined action can make an overwhelming difference in the outcome. If you miss that window, you have often missed your best opportunity to fight back. Will there be other opportunities? Probably, if the BG makes other mistakes along the way. But once he has gained control, those later opportunities will always be considerably more risky to the actor than the first one would have been. And so the chances of those later opportunities being as easily-managed as the first one become somewhat more dicey.

See, for example, Strong on Defense for some discussion of how this dynamic works. There are others.

Kathy

OldMarksman
March 5, 2009, 06:58 PM
The fact is that at the very beginning of the incident, as it first starts to unfold and before the BG has total control of the situation, there is usually a response window where sudden, decisive, determined action can make an overwhelming difference in the outcome. If you miss that window, you have often missed your best opportunity to fight back. Will there be other opportunities? Probably, if the BG makes other mistakes along the way. But once he has gained control, those later opportunities will always be considerably more risky to the actor than the first one would have been.

And that's why the gun come out concurrently with the moneyclip. For an instant, the ball is in the perp's court, if and only if he pauses--but only for him to decide whether to continue or to depart. At no point does he gain control. If he does not pause you are exactly where you would have been in terms of timing, and you have to fire.

Mas Ayoob wrote that back in the day, he used to carry a five dollar bill wrapped around a matchbook for the purpose. I prefer something that will fly a little better and is adequate to at least cause the man to consider.

(Are any of these outcomes likely? Of course not. The vast majority of people go through life without ever being attacked at all, let alone encountering the worst of the worst. It's not the odds that bother me here. It's the stakes.)

And that's the thing to remember in risk management in this area. If we made all determinations solely on the basis of likelihood, we would not carry guns and train to use them.

David Armstrong
March 5, 2009, 07:09 PM
The fact is that at the very beginning of the incident, as it first starts to unfold and before the BG has total control of the situation, there is usually a response window where sudden, decisive, determined action can make an overwhelming difference in the outcome.
And in an armed robbery as described the BGs control of the situation has not changed by initial compliance. He has not moved closer, he has not changed his threat level, or any thing else. In fact, the advantage may have shifted to you a bit, as you are now more aware of the situation and what is going on. Your response window has not changed, and I would question the assumption that initial compliance indicates the BG has total control of the situation. IMO the BG does not have total control until I have either given that control to him or I am physically unable to resist.
If you miss that window, you have often missed your best opportunity to fight back.
Equally valid is that if you immediately respond you will often miss an opportunity to improve your chances by waiting until the BG is less focused on you and his need to assert dominance. Your best opportunity may be immediate, but it may also be later on.
But once he has gained control, those later opportunities will always be considerably more risky to the actor than the first one would have been. And so the chances of those later opportunities being as easily-managed as the first one become somewhat more dicey.
We'll disagree. You seem to base the argument on the idea that the BGs will become more vigilant and suspicious the longer the encounter goes and the more you cooperate with them. According to my research and readings it is just the opposite, the more you comply the less of a threat they feel you present to them and the less they worry about you or focus on you. Let's ask a simple question...do you think you will be more focused on the BG that has broken into your house when you first confront him and don't know what he will do, or more focused after about a minute when he has complied with your requests to do whatever it is you requested?

ETA: Strong on Defense is a good read, but horribly inaccurate on many, if not most, of the predictions and such. IIRC, there is almost no support for many of his conclusions, and in fact some of his suggestions seem directly contradicted by research in the field.

Tennessee Gentleman
March 5, 2009, 07:12 PM
Now, whether you have the luxury of that strategy will be situation dependent. If he's, say, fifteen or twenty feet away and you can add some distance, it should work, and it's no less risky than firing first.

One more question. Why give him the money and risk him rushing you? He has pulled a knife and demanded money. You are fully justified if he does anything else other than run to shoot him. The evidence will be there when the police arrive and more than likely the other dude will beat feet. Why not just draw and tell him to back off? If he feels inclined to die for the wallet he probably would have hurt you too. However, I like your draw and now you have the advantage. One final thing, I would NOT call drawing a weapon on a robber compliance. But that's just me:)

The worst thing that can happen if you shoot is loss of freedom and your personal fortune, and a permanent criminal record.

Based on the scenario presented I think the chances of that are low.

It's not the odds that bother me here. It's the stakes

This is wisdom. The problem with compliance is what do you have to lose beyond your cash. Avoidance is always best but having the advantage if you can is better.

If you miss that window, you have often missed your best opportunity to fight back. Will there be other opportunities?

Now this is really good. You know Kathy, you ought to do this professionally.;)

David tells us that police always tell you to comply. Maybe, but think about who their audience is (context is everything David) and why they say that. Are they talking to people who CCW to defend themselves and have studied and had some training?

No, they are talking to Joe and Jill Blow who don't carry and they only thing they could do is fight unarmed and have never thought about being robbed.

Once you have a CCW the odds change but you owe it to yourself and others to get smart about how to use those odds to your best advantage.

Tennessee Gentleman
March 5, 2009, 07:20 PM
Your response window has not changed.

Yes it has. If you act first decisively you change the dynamic and put him on the defensive. Now HE must react. I could see using compliance IF the BG already has control over you but the OP did not put it that way.

Equally valid is that if you immediately respond you will often miss an opportunity to improve your chances by waiting until the BG is less focused on you and his need to assert dominance.

I think the saying goes "a bird in the hand" I'd rather get my advantage sooner rather than later in dealing with a criminal. No need to play it out if you don't have to.

You seem to base the argument on the idea that the BGs will become more vigilant and suspicious the longer the encounter goes and the more you cooperate with them.

Or they may become more violent the more you comply if they intend you harm as they gain more control.

According to my research and readings it is just the opposite, the more you comply the less of a threat they feel you present to them and the less they worry about you or focus on you.

Ahh, the secret studies. I knew we would hear about them soon. Any citation of this? I really wonder about all the advice you get on the Internet:rolleyes:

Tennessee Gentleman
March 5, 2009, 07:26 PM
Mas Ayoob wrote that back in the day, he used to carry a five dollar bill wrapped around a matchbook for the purpose. I prefer something that will fly a little better and is adequate to at least cause the man to consider.

I read Mas' books too but I am not sure he would use that in the scenario presented. Why? Well, Mas also says that when faced suddenly with a life threatening situation motor skills get impaired. Tossing out a wallet while simultaneously drawing and aiming a handgun while under that stress is too rich for my blood. Why take that chance with a man standing there with a knife? Might even be better to just run away. Of course if you trained enough maybe but I would be leery.

Deaf Smith
March 5, 2009, 07:52 PM
Let's say there's two robbers that stop you in a parking lot. one displaying a knife with the cliche "gimme yo money!" ... do you treat them as one threat and shoot at both (disparity of force), can you safely assume both are armed from a legal standpoint?

Incorrect thinking. You know at least one of them is armed. The second one may or may not be. Since they have started the ball rolling, and you don't have time to search the second one for a weapon, then you can very well argue you were in fear of your life as you were attacked by two people, and at least, to your knowledge, one was armed with a weapon (and the other one's hands could not be seen.)

OldMarksman
March 5, 2009, 10:11 PM
Why give him the money and risk him rushing you? He has pulled a knife and demanded money. You are fully justified if he does anything else other than run to shoot him.

I agree with that, subject to the assumption that you had no alternative,but the problem is whether the judicial system will see it that way. Why toss the money? Very simple: to diffuse the threat and reduce the risk.

The evidence will be there when the police arrive

What evidence? A man who has been shot by your gun? A knife? Perhaps witnesses with ambiguous, or even worse, unfavorable testimony?

...and more than likely the other dude will beat feet.


I guess your answer to the OP is that you would not shoot the second "dude."

Why not just draw and tell him to back off?

Good question. That's the usual response. But let's assume the man is desperate for money for food, gasoline, or drugs. He may not be easily dissuaded. But the money may motivate him to leave.

If he feels inclined to die for the wallet he probably would have hurt you too.

My point exactly.

I would NOT call drawing a weapon on a robber compliance. But that's just me

Who called it compliance?

Might even be better to just run away.

Actually, that's required in many states, if you can do so safely.

And you may be paying an expert witness to demonstrate why you had no other choice.

Let's address some hypoheticals.

A man with a knife, accompanied by a friend, kills a man with a gun. What actually happened was that the knife-wielder was the aggressor in an attempted robbery, but now it's his story. He says he asked for a match, the dead man drew a gun, and he had to use the knife in self defense.

Absent witnesses, what would lead the authorities to believe other wise?

One more time: do not presume that you will be seen as the good guy.

Consider a jury: All CCW licensees will have been challenged and removed. People who don't like guns will remain. The average juror will not understand why the use of a firearm against a man with a knife could ever be necessary. The idea that 21 feet is a threatening distance is foreign to them. There may be cultural biases. Some of them may not like your looks.

You will be paying for expert witnesses such as Mas Ayoob or David Armstrong to convince them that your actions were justified.

They might succeed, at great cost

Why give him the money

Did that answer your question?

Tennessee Gentleman
March 5, 2009, 11:31 PM
Absent witnesses, what would lead the authorities to believe other wise? One more time: do not presume that you will be seen as the good guy.

No offense OldMarksman but I think you may be over analyzing the problem. Lots of things go into investigations, like these guys will probably have records and you don't. The guy will be laying there with a knife etc.

Man approaches you with deadly weapon and makes clear he wants to rob you. Pretty clear cut SD and that threat is RIGHT NOW. As to your worries about the jury and trial and all that, here is what I say; don't carry CCW.

If you are that worried about the aftermath don't carry. As most know the chances of any violence coming to you is low, very low unless you engage in risky behavior. Of course if you are in the wrong place at the wrong time.....your choice.

The problem I would have with your response is that you are trying to do too many things IMO with a guy standing nearby with a knife and evil intent. I would draw, aim and command retreat. If I could safely back up I might and that is all I would do unless he came toward me. If the other guy came toward me I would tell him to stop or shoot him if he didn't.

Who called it compliance?

You did when you agreed with David Armstrong's post.

That certainly describes my position accurately.

Did that answer your question?

You answered it but I think you are taking a greater risk by doing what you propose than you need to but that is your choice. I think your concern over the aftermath is overblown but that is your opinion. I have been taught not to react that way but that is opinion also.

You will be paying for expert witnesses such as Mas Ayoob or David Armstrong to convince them that your actions were justified.


Mas Ayoob perhaps but I don't think David Armstrong is an expert. Anyway, that is better than paying with your life. I can make more money.

Dr. Strangelove
March 5, 2009, 11:31 PM
There are many assumptions going on here, two of the biggest I see are:

1.) That you, the victim of this most heinous crime, will have actually have time to draw and fire your weapon. Remember, the original post is extremely vague, all we know is that the assailant already has the knife drawn. Is he 21 feet away? Is he two feet away? Is he yelling through a bullhorn from the other side of the parking lot? Remember - a great many of you felt the "2nd BG" just reaching in his pocket was grounds to shoot. What makes you think Mr. Bad Guy won't see your movement, conclude you are going for a gun, and attack?

2.)That your pistol, assuming you are able to draw in the time required to beat Mr. Bad guy to the punch, is going to function as intended. "Click" - now what are you going to do? Or - oops - pistol hung in my jacket, skittered across the pavement and landed under someone's red Ford Taurus. Hmmm...

Bear with me on those two points, I know we are suspending reality here (Oh... ahhh...never mind...:rolleyes:) because everyone here is the fastest draw ever, even with a sack of groceries in each hand, and has never had a single weapons malfunction. Just give those two points a brief whirl through the ol noggin.

Something else I've noticed: some sort of deeply rooted need to "punish" the bad guy. Keep something in mind - you're not going to blow the smoke out of your barrel and ride off in the sunset with the beautiful cowgirl across your saddle (or however you carry women on horses, someone help me out here) after "smokin' the two bad guys". The movies this ain't. You'll be lucky to spend the night in your own bed, much less lauded as some sort of hero. A CCW permit is not a "007 License", or a "junior Lone Ranger" badge. The only thing a CCW permit allows you to do is carry a concealed weapon, you have no more right to use said weapon in a given situation than someone who doesn't have a permit. Mr. Bad Guy may do this, Mr. Bad Guy may do that, it doesn't matter what Mr. Bad Guy may do, you are allowed to use deadly force against an established threat, not what someone may do 30 minutes, 15 minutes, or 10 seconds later. There seems to be an awful lot of Walter Mitty (google it) saving the high school cheer-leading team from the Mongol hordes going on here. Leave the police work to the police, and leave the macho crap at home.

One more little rant, possibly off topic, then I'm done. All the posts about "how many backup guns do you carry", "is 10 mags enough", "I'm just fightin my way back to the truck where I have a full division's worth of weapons, to include artillery" on the T&T forum are funny, but how are you going to look shooting a 15 year old kid with a penknife when you're carrying 3 "BUGS", 19 spare magazines, 2 combat knives, "tactical" light, backup "tactical" light, and whatever else it is you find necessary to carry? Sounds like pretty much a slam dunk you were looking to shoot someone to me.

I use a bit of sarcasm and humor to get my point across sometimes (well, many times:o), but I'm not trying to whiz in anyone's Cheerios here (that would be grounds for having "the hammer dropped on me":eek:). I just believe that there are some reasonable voices on this forum trying to educate others and keep them from making the worst mistake of their lives. If your default answer is "shoot", please take a moment to review the laws and perhaps a few shootings and the outcome in your state. A CCW permit does not make you some sort of white-hatted defender of the public, it simply allows you to carry a concealed weapon, nothing more.

Thanks for your attention, now back to the regularly scheduled shoot-em up.

nate45
March 5, 2009, 11:49 PM
http://www.cinematographers.nl/GreatDoPh/Films/DrStrangelove3.jpg

I have a plan! Mein...My fellow posters.

We combine the two schools of thought into one great tactic.

Acting compliantly you carefully reach into your pocket and extract a money clip, you throw the money clip on the ground, this should distract the BGs, then you draw your CCW and blast away not stopping till both of them are prostrate on the ground.:)

If you were me and did this, it would result in the High Sheriff and the States Attorney saying 'Good job Nate' YMMV.;)

Hondo11
March 6, 2009, 05:42 AM
There have been many posts that mentioned the possibility of the victim going to jail, being charged with murder, etc, for shooting the robber with a knife. While I do realize that some District Attorneys can be over-zealous, and some downright anti-gun, I still have never heard of anyone being prosecuted for a defensive shooting that was 100% on the up and up. Does anyone have a link to a case where a victim was prosecuted for defending himself against an armed attacker? I'm not talking about the ones that make your eyebrows raise and think "there's more to this story". I'm talking about a person being in a parking lot, a criminal using a deadly weapon to rob them, and the victim shooting the badguy. Not the guy in Arizona that shot the man approaching him in a threatening manner, etc. I want a cite for someone who was straight up accosted by an armed attacker/robber, defended him/herself with a firearm, then was subsequently prosecuted. (Shows a deadly weapon, gimme your money...I'm in fear for my life, BANG!) Asking for this cite isn't a defiant challenge or anything like that. I honestly can't recall it happening and if it has, I'd like to read about it.

A person using a deadly weapon to commit a violent act against you is very cut and dry. This isn't one of those cases that's subjective, even in the slightest. There's a guy standing in front of you with a knife/gun/whatever. Robbery is theft by use of force or threat of force. It's the lovechild of Assault and Theft. Aggravated/Armed/Whateveryourstatecallsit Robbery is the same, but with a deadly weapon. BY DEFINITION, he is attacking you or threatining to attack you and he's using a deadly weapon to do it. There really isn't a situation that is more clear cut for self defense with a firearm.

So all the worry about "I could go to jail if I shoot" is pretty uneccesary, in my opinion. It's a justified worry if you're involved in a questionable shooting. But shooting armed robbers isn't a questionable shooting.

For something to be a prosecutable criminal act, there has to be a criminal offense for your actions to fall under, and your actions have to meet ALL of the elements of that offense. If you are 100% on the up and up, then no matter how anti-whatever the prosecutor may be, it is impossible for him to prove that your actions met ALL the elements of the offense. Don't shoot under questionable circumstances and you'll be good.


***THIS POST WAS MADE USING THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE SELF DEFENSE SHOOTING WAS 100% JUSTIFIED AND THAT THERE ISN'T ANYTHING THAT THE VICTIM HAS DONE TO THROW A WRENCH INTO THINGS.***

***It should also be noted that my default position isn't "shoot 'em up". I have drawn on two would be armed robbers and shot neither. On the other hand, my default position is NOT "compliance." My default position and what I would recommend to anyone who asked is to have the default position of "whatever comes closest to gauranteeing that I come out unharmed. If that means shoot, then shoot. If it doesn't, then don't."

Milspec
March 6, 2009, 08:25 AM
Quote:
-------------
"A person using a deadly weapon to commit a violent act against you is very cut and dry. This isn't one of those cases that's subjective, even in the slightest."
--------------

Pardon me for jumping in here but that's not correct...at least not in all states. In KY you don't have to give your wallet to an idiot with cutlery. You can legally stand your ground, keep your wallet, and use deadly force as a first resort. That's not true in Ohio. You can't use deadly force to protect property, you have no right to stand your ground in public, and can only shoot as a last resort to defend against serious harm or death. Here in Columbus, a guy asking for money while holding a knife would not be cause to shoot. You'd have to give up your wallet, try to escape, notify the guy you're a CHL, and actually be attacked before you can shoot to "stop" the attacker. Under no conditions can you shoot to "kill"...athough that may be the result. Weird but true... :D

Milspec

Double Naught Spy
March 6, 2009, 08:43 AM
[I still have never heard of anyone being prosecuted for a defensive shooting that was 100% on the up and up.

Right, and there is problem. What is being "on the up and up." Many claim the Harold Fish shooting was on the up and up, but he was prosecuted and convicted. Harold Fish was certain at the time his shooting was justified and as a result, he spoke freely with the cops (bad move).

I do understand your question and suggestion that nobody is ever prosecuted for an obviously good shoot. Heck, I have seen several cases where obviously good shoots resulting in the deaths of bad guys don't even result in the good guy being arrested (contrary to the claims of many that you will most definitely be arrested if you even draw your gun, much less if you actually have to discharge it and it results in the death of your attacker).

Unfortunately, clear cut cases are not the norm as often as we would like them to be. The reasons for this are multi-fold. It may be due to he said-she said accounting, confusing witness statements, or a lack of witnesses or cameras). Prosecutors do not prosecute cases they obviously cannot win such as clear cut self defense shootings. They do prosecute shootings that are not clear cut self defense shootings, however.

Be that as it may, my first priority is the defense of my life. While I don't want to go to court, that may happen. To go to court, however, I will indeed be alive, which is my first priority.

Hondo11
March 6, 2009, 09:00 AM
Pardon me for jumping in here but that's not correct...at least not in all states. In KY you don't have to give your wallet to an idiot with cutlery. You can legally stand your ground, keep your wallet, and use deadly force as a first resort. That's not true in Ohio. You can't use deadly force to protect property, you have no right to stand your ground in public, and can only shoot as a last resort to defend against serious harm or death. Here in Columbus, a guy asking for money while holding a knife would not be cause to shoot. You'd have to give up your wallet, try to escape, notify the guy you're a CHL, and actually be attacked before you can shoot to "stop" the attacker. Under no conditions can you shoot to "kill"...athough that may be the result. Weird but true...

True, self defense options vary by state. I understand that. My post applies to those who legally have the option and still worry about being arrested, charged, and thrown in prison. If you don't legally have the option, then you can't fit into that category.

Hondo11
March 6, 2009, 09:32 AM
Right, and there is problem. What is being "on the up and up." Many claim the Harold Fish shooting was on the up and up, but he was prosecuted and convicted. Harold Fish was certain at the time his shooting was justified and as a result, he spoke freely with the cops (bad move).

I do understand your question and suggestion that nobody is ever prosecuted for an obviously good shoot. Heck, I have seen several cases where obviously good shoots resulting in the deaths of bad guys don't even result in the good guy being arrested (contrary to the claims of many that you will most definitely be arrested if you even draw your gun, much less if you actually have to discharge it and it results in the death of your attacker).

Unfortunately, clear cut cases are not the norm as often as we would like them to be. The reasons for this are multi-fold. It may be due to he said-she said accounting, confusing witness statements, or a lack of witnesses or cameras). Prosecutors do not prosecute cases they obviously cannot win such as clear cut self defense shootings. They do prosecute shootings that are not clear cut self defense shootings, however.

Be that as it may, my first priority is the defense of my life. While I don't want to go to court, that may happen. To go to court, however, I will indeed be alive, which is my first priority.

ALL self-defense shootings should be clear cut. If they're not, then someone is doing something wrong. I understand that people perceive things differently and point-of-view can cause conflicting statements. But if you did what you were supposed to do, within the law and within reason, then the investigation will bear that out. It really will. Your actions will be tested against the elements of the criminal offense of murder then balanced against the law regarding use of force in self defense. If you did EVERYTHING like you were supposed to, acted within the law and within reason, then you will be fine.

Now, if a witness hears you yell "F*ck you, criminal scum!" and then sees you draw your Glock 17, shoot the guy 18 times, reload, then shoot the guy 17 more times while he's on the ground...well, then you may have a problem. But YOU caused it. That's my point.

You won't find too many parking lot robbery self defense shootings (in states where the victims have the option of defending themselves and where the victim did everything right) that turned into anything more than a Grand Jury Referral (which is pretty much mandatory). Most folks aren't charged...or even arrested in the first place.

I'm not suggesting (and wasn't in the other post) that the aftermath shouldn't be considered. I'm just saying that it should be bumped below the concern for your life and/or physical health.

You have to live through the encounter before you can arrested and charged (which most likely isn't going to happen if you're within the law like you should be.)

Ben Towe
March 6, 2009, 09:42 AM
Approached by two BGs, dark parking lot. Ok, #1: I'm a paranoid individual, I'm on high alert most all the time, especially in dark, urban places. So chances are I've spotted said BGs on their approach, so I've got hackles up already. BGs pick up their pace and BG#1 draws knife. I drop anything I'm carrying and brandish my weapon, leveling it at BG#1. From here several things could happen:
1: BGs turn and high step it out of the area. Result: hold my fire, make sure threat has passed, holster weapon, go home and have a beer.
2: BGs stop but do not retreat.Result: Hold fire and order BGs to drop weapon and leave.
2a: BGs comply and leave. Result: Hold fire, etc.
2b: BGs do not comply but do not advance. Result: Continue holding fire while repeating orders to leave. Risk glance around to make sure no more BGs approaching.
3: BGs continue towards me. Result: Double tap BG#1 in heart. Cover BG#2 with weapon. Hold fire if still unarmed and stopped or quitting the fight. Double tap if reaching for a weapon or still advancing.

Now to throw in more variables such as distance. In scenario 2, if BG#1 is within 12-14 feet of me I move backward to distance myself. If he is already in striking distance we skip 2a and 2b and I kill him for sure and possibly his partner. If he stops at that distance it may be to slice your jugular. The unarmed BG could only avoid death by hitting the dirt or turning his back to me; I wouldn't shoot a man in the back unless it was necessary to protect someone else.

This is what I would try to do in the situation. Of course there are other variables that could happen and reactions would have to change accordingly, but I doubt I'd be thinking of what the DA or the jury is gonna do, surviving would be the first, last, and only thing on my mind.

Tennessee Gentleman
March 6, 2009, 10:04 AM
Many claim the Harold Fish shooting was on the up and up, but he was prosecuted and convicted. Harold Fish was certain at the time his shooting was justified and as a result, he spoke freely with the cops (bad move).

Pardon the atrocious pun but the Harold Fish case was from the beginning; fishy. More importantly he shot an unarmed man. Not a good example to use.

OldMarksman
March 6, 2009, 10:07 AM
like these guys will probably have records and you don't.

Do you believe that you will be able to use that? Sometimes one can, sometimes not.

The guy will be laying there with a knife etc.

And you had a gun. The only difference is that you used more force than he had available.

There was an altercation between two men with weapons. One died. Was it self defense, or murder? That's to be decided.

And that's the case whether you killed him or he killed you.

Man approaches you with deadly weapon and makes clear he wants to rob you. Pretty clear cut SD and that threat is RIGHT NOW.

You've got that right.

As to your worries about the jury and trial and all that, here is what I say; don't carry CCW. If you are that worried about the aftermath don't carry.

No offense, but I find that completely nonsensical. Where I live, qualifying for a CCW endorsement requires taking an eight hour training course, and about half of that is devoted to the law--and the "aftermath." Why might that be?

As most know the chances of any violence coming to you is low, very low unless you engage in risky behavior.

True. And from that you deduce what? In risk management, you analyze likelihood and potential consequences.

As Kathy Jackson said,

Are any of these outcomes likely? Of course not. The vast majority of people go through life without ever being attacked at all, let alone encountering the worst of the worst. It's not the odds that bother me here. It's the stakes.

The problem I would have with your response is that you are trying to do too many things IMO with a guy standing nearby with a knife and evil intent.

I don't think tossing a money clip with the other hand adds too much at all, but if the guy's already breathing on me it might not be indicated.

I would draw, aim and command retreat.

Good strategy. The reason I'm suuggesting the money is that the man might be so desparate for money (say, for a "fix") that he would take the chance of dying rather than withddraw empty handed.

A little added insurance.

If I could safely back up I might and that is all I would do unless he came toward me.

You might?

In many states you will either be trying to provide evidence that you did so or that you could not do so safely, in order to successfully mount your defense of justifiability.

If the other guy came toward me I would tell him to stop or shoot him if he didn't.

How would you contend that you were in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm when approached by an unarmed man?

I have been taught not to react that way [with concern about the aftermath, or the legality of the use of deadly force] but that is opinion also.

Not to appear disrespectful, but that does raise questions about the qualifications of your teachers.

You would probably be well served to study these carefully:

http://www.useofforce.us

http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/01c1e7698280d20385256d0b00789923/f587d7d10c34fff2852572b90069bc3c?OpenDocument&Click=

http://www.teddytactical.com/archive/MonthlyStudy/2006/02_StudyDay.htm

I don't think David Armstrong is an expert.


I may be wrong but I do think he has served in that capacity. Here's what's on the forum:

About David Armstrong
Biography
Former military, retired LE, Ph.D. in criminal justice and currently teaching.
Occupation
Associate Professor of Criminal Justice

Anyway, that is better than paying with your life. I can make more money.

Addressing the second sentence first: yes, if and only if you prevail. Whether you ever reach break-even will be open to question.

What's better?

Here's my take:

The fourth last thing I ever want to do is shoot someone in an open and shut SD case.

The third last is to shoot somone and go trough an extensive investigation, and maybe a grand jury procedure, and maybe a trial that I win, perhaps on appeal.

The second last is to shoot and be convicted of improper use of deadly force.

Tied for last: getting killed or injured; having a loved one killed or injured; hitting an innocent person.

I think you''ll see that I agree: better. But not all that good.

You won't have any time at all to consider anything but the situation, should an event such as the one we have been discussing occur. Best to know what you can and cannot do, and what you will and will not do, before going outside.

hogdogs
March 6, 2009, 10:11 AM
Harold Fish's attacker was armed with a screwdriver and had threatening canine advance first...
Call me a bad person but a charging snarling dog would have gotten the first 10mm had it been me! Loose dogs charging me on my place or in public setting is a dead dog!:mad:
If one of my dogs charged someone and was shot for it I would have apologized to the person who had to do what they did to insure their health was not diminished...
I think the only thing that got Mr.Fish convicted was his statement that didn't match that of someone else who wasn't any closer than distant earshot to only hear the shots...
It is this case alone and the advice of some wise folks here that convinced me to "lawyer up" if ever in similar situation. I always thought if in the right it wouldn't hurt to give a statement...
Brent

hogdogs
March 6, 2009, 10:17 AM
Why do so many folks mention "unarmed man" when speaking of violent individuals? Unless you are very skilled fighter or a rather big dude, ARMED or UNARMED is immaterial!
I bet dollars to doughnuts if you approach PAX in a threatening manner armed or not and get within her "comfort zone" she is gonna hit you with a 2 COM right then and there! Following the requisite cliche... STOP OR I WILL SHOOT!!!"
Ms.Pax, am I close to correct on this?
Brent

Tennessee Gentleman
March 6, 2009, 10:51 AM
Do you believe that you will be able to use that? Sometimes one can, sometimes not.

If you read my post carefully you will see that I was referring to the investigation which the police would conduct after the shooting, so yes it would be used.

And you had a gun. The only difference is that you used more force than he had available.
There was an altercation between two men with weapons. One died. Was it self defense, or murder? That's to be decided.
And that's the case whether you killed him or he killed you.

I am not sure that I see much relevance in your point. Two armed men have an altercation, one is dead, there is an investigation. Yesss, so what? I think you need to stay with the OP rather than take rabbit trails on what the possibilities might be later.

qualifying for a CCW endorsement requires taking an eight hour training course, and about half of that is devoted to the law--and the "aftermath." Why might that be?

Because many civilians do not know the laws of self defense and that is part of the instruction. However, my point is that if you are so afraid of the aftermath of a SD shooting then don't carry and chances are you will be OK for the most part.

In many states you will either be trying to provide evidence that you did so or that you could not do so safely, in order to successfully mount your defense of justifiability.

Not in mine. Again, in the instance provided in the OP I think my response would be reasonable.

Not to appear disrespectful, but that does raise questions about the qualifications of your teachers.

Yeah, see the problem is you added your own thought into my quote. Not good form. Better to ask for clarification first. The response I provided which you said was: Good strategy.
was what I was taught to do.

What I was taught was a not so good idea was what you propose (tossing things while trying to draw) for the reasons that I mentioned earlier.

I may be wrong but I do think he has served in that capacity. Here's what's on the forum:

I pay less attention to Internet credentials and more to what people post. I have posted with and read several of Mr. Armstrong's post's and while I do think he has some knowledge in some areas of criminal justice and shooting I do not hold his opinions to be expert. If you wish elaboration please PM me and I will be glad to explain more.

Here's my take:

Here's mine:

1) The best defense is to not be there
2) If you can retreat safely when confronted with danger do so.
3) If you cannot retreat safely and you are in fear of your life and confronted with imminent danger by someone who has the opportunity and ability to take your life then react in the manner I was trained which I outlined earlier.
4) No extra insurance, no kung fu moves, no snappy movie talk, no tossing things about just do what I was trained to do to stop the threat.

Anyway, that is my expert opinion:rolleyes:

OldMarksman
March 6, 2009, 11:29 AM
I still have never heard of anyone being prosecuted for a defensive shooting that was 100% on the up and up.


The other night on PDTV, Mas Ayoob mentioned the case of a peace officer who was involved in a "good shoot" but who went to jail because of the way the aftermath was handled.

Does anyone have a link to a case where a victim was prosecuted for defending himself against an armed attacker? ... I want a cite for someone who was straight up accosted by an armed attacker/robber, defended him/herself with a firearm, then was subsequently prosecuted.


A "link"? To a story, maybe.

The problem is that there is no database for trial court records, and there are a lot of trial courts--count the counties in the country.

The only time you will find anything searchable is when a case has been reviewed on appeal.

I honestly can't recall it happening and if it has, I'd like to read about it.


Perhaps you might PM Mas Ayoob.

A person using a deadly weapon to commit a violent act against you is very cut and dry. This isn't one of those cases that's subjective, even in the slightest. There's a guy standing in front of you with a knife/gun/whatever. Robbery is theft by use of force or threat of force. It's the lovechild of Assault and Theft. Aggravated/Armed/Whateveryourstatecallsit Robbery is the same, but with a deadly weapon. BY DEFINITION, he is attacking you or threatining to attack you and he's using a deadly weapon to do it. There really isn't a situation that is more clear cut for self defense with a firearm.

I agree entirely, though in some states you may have to retreat if possible.

The problem is, in most places the defense of justifiability is an affirmative defense. To use it, the actor admits that he has in fact used deadly force--a criminal act but for the circumstances that justified his action--and he must provide evidence showing that his actions were justified.

It's unlikely that his word alone will suffice. Otherwise, most all murders would be defended on the basis of self defense. Maybe a lot of them are but not successfully

So, it's not just what the actor says happened, and it's not even just what actually happened, but it's what the evidence shows happened, and perhaps what witnesses say happened, and how the people in various stages of the judicial process evaluate the evidence and testimony.

ALL self-defense shootings should be clear cut. If they're not, then someone is doing something wrong.

Clear cut to whom? To the actor, yes. But that won't be the determinant.

The problem is, the shootings are not on a stage being filmed for later review.

But if you did what you were supposed to do, within the law and within reason, then the investigation will bear that out. It really will. Your actions will be tested against the elements of the criminal offense of murder then balanced against the law regarding use of force in self defense. If you did EVERYTHING like you were supposed to, acted within the law and within reason, then you will be fine.

That's what we hope. But it will depend on the evidence, on witness testimony if there were witnesses, on how well the actor is able to articulate the reasons for his action at the time, and on how all of that is evaluated by the jury.

In the case put forth by the OP, it may come down to witness testimony, or maybe a security camera. The only evidence mentioned is the presence of two weapons, and if one man kills the other either way it goes there will be forensic evidence.

By the way, if the guy with the knife ends up killing the man with the gun, he will probably be claiming that it was self defense. Clear cut, within the law and all that.

Try this:

http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/01c1e7698280d20385256d0b00789923/f587d7d10c34fff2852572b90069bc3c?OpenDocument&Click=

I think this shows that as you say, the scenario set forth by the OP is a clear-cut example of justifiability (again, subject to retreat considerations). No question on that, in your mind or mine, because it seems clear that


The client had reasonable grounds to believe he or she was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. Heated words, vague threats, and the possibility of future harm are not enough. The harm must be serious and imminent.
The client actually believed that he or she, or a third person, was in such imminent danger. Establishing this subjective belief often requires the client to testify.
The danger was such that the client could only save himself or herself by the use of deadly force. Some states do not require the defendant to retreat, even if he or she can do so safely.1 Most states do not require the defendant to retreat if he is in his own home defending against someone who is unlawfully present. Law enforcement officers are not required to retreat.
The client had to use no more force than was necessary in all the circumstances of the case.

Here's the issue:

At a minimum, the defense must include some evidence, generally viewed in the light most favorable to the defense, on each of these factors in order to receive an appropriate jury instruction.

Then there's the prosecution's evidence. There's some risk that the forensic evidence may be such that it can appear harmful to your case.

In the OP's scenario, I think my biggest concern would be the risk of unfavorable witness testimony--what people did not see, what they thought they saw, what they did not remember, and how they remembered what they saw.

The point is, the fact of "good shoot" (I think that's a law enforcement term, and I don't think it helps our case as civilian gun owners) is not sufficient without something to substantiate that fact after the event.

None of that says you shouldn't shoot (the armed man) if you have to.

In case by chance you haven't heard these, Ayoob says that if you do have to shoot, do the following:

Be the first to call 911

When the officers arrive, point out the man on the ground as the aggressor.

Say that you are the victim and that you will sign the complaint.

Point out the evidence [knife in this case?]

Point out the witnesses.

Say that you the officers will have your full cooperation in twenty four hours after you have conferred with counsel.

I think I've remembered those properly.

Ian0351
March 6, 2009, 12:28 PM
A: I am not giving my wallet to dirtbag with knife under any circumstances, cash, no cash, etc. One, it's a matter of principle; two, it has my address in it with my stuff that is worth stealing.

B: The sheriff in my town once told me "just make sure by the time my boys show up there's only one story" in regards to CCW shootings. so yes, both go down unless the 2nd one shows me heels before I can double tap him.

C: Freedom does not mean the right to be defended by the police, nor does political correctness. I feel pretty good about never setting foot inside a courtroom under these circumstances, especially considering my 2nd point.

David Armstrong
March 6, 2009, 01:14 PM
Quote:
I don't think David Armstrong is an expert.
**********************************
I may be wrong but I do think he has served in that capacity. Here's what's on the forum:
You are not wrong. I assume the person posting the original comment is one of the folks that are on my Ignore list, and they are there for a reason...they tend to use, support and advocate what I feel is dishonest and unethical behavior. And this is a good example of that. Rather than taking a moment to try to find the truth as to someones's record, they just make up an answer and toss it out there without any concern as to the accuracy. Yes, I am a court certified expert witness in the area of firearms training and tactics, have served as one several times, and do a fair amount of consulting on the subject. The fact that someone thinks that I am not an expert in that context shows far more about the quality of what they think than the issue of another's expertise.
As to your worries about the jury and trial and all that, here is what I say; don't carry CCW. If you are that worried about the aftermath don't carry.
****************************
No offense, but I find that completely nonsensical.
Yes. it is complete nonsense. Anyone who suggests one not worry about the aftermath of a deadly force event simply shows how little they know about deadly force and the law.

David Armstrong
March 6, 2009, 01:20 PM
A person using a deadly weapon to commit a violent act against you is very cut and dry. This isn't one of those cases that's subjective, even in the slightest.
There is the problem. It is not cut and dry, it is usually very subjective, AND it also comes in two parts---criminal and civil. Even if you get a very clear cut and dry okie-dokie criminal event you can still get slammed in the civil aftermath. People are prosecuted regularly for what they felt were 100% upand up shootings, and they lose because the jury doesn't agree with them that it was all that clear.

curt.45
March 6, 2009, 01:41 PM
well excuse me.

Sparks2112
March 6, 2009, 01:49 PM
Deleted a quote of deleted post - pax

You have no business saying something like that on this board. I hope you get talked to, and, your comment has been reported seeing as it's against the TOS of this place and makes us all seem like hicks waiting to blow someone away.

hogdogs
March 6, 2009, 01:54 PM
consider me sufficantly flogged.
Brent

curt.45
March 6, 2009, 01:56 PM
it was meant as a joke, sorry to upset you all.

consider me sufficantly flogged.

pax
March 6, 2009, 02:00 PM
Curt,

The other members were right on this one: that's not the way we do things here. Thanks for editing your post. It takes a brave person to apologize instantly like that, and clean up too. Nicely done.

Kathy

hogdogs
March 6, 2009, 02:02 PM
Curt,
Jokes and humor even "dry, snarky" humor is fine so long as it is kept "above board"...
You will find that folks here consider those statements a direct threat to their 2A RKBA...
Trust me... If you look at my first hunert posts on this board... I learned too!;):rolleyes::D
Oh and one more thing... the flogging is not to be considered finished until the floggers say it is finished!:eek:
Brent

Sparks2112
March 6, 2009, 02:02 PM
it was meant as a joke, sorry to upset you all.

<flog>

You might want to make it more clear when you're kidding. Do you think an ANTI (and they do read this forum, I guarantee it) coming across that would see it as a joke, or as just another confirmation to what they thought they already knew?

There are people reading this right now who have ZERO positive firearms experience. Can they recognize it as a joke? If not what do you think it says about us?

</flog>

pax
March 6, 2009, 02:15 PM
Oh and one more thing... the flogging is not to be considered finished until the floggers say it is finished!

Correction: "... until the moderators say it is finished."

And it is finished now. No more piling on. Capiche?

pax

hogdogs
March 6, 2009, 02:18 PM
Yes'm I agree...
Brent

curt.45
March 6, 2009, 02:22 PM
now if you could to get sparks to remove the post I removed?


thanks. on both.

Tennessee Gentleman
March 6, 2009, 03:39 PM
is one of the folks that are on my Ignore list, and they are there for a reason...they tend to use, support and advocate what I feel is dishonest and unethical behavior.

Rather than taking a moment to try to find the truth

Too funny.:D

pax
March 6, 2009, 03:54 PM
Looks to me as if this one's run its course anyway.

pax