PDA

View Full Version : A possible scenario in the near future


rmocarsky
July 11, 2009, 07:36 PM
OK shooters,

Here is the case:

You are 58 years old, 165 lbs. 5'9".

You have been assaulted by a 30 year old weighing about 250 lbs. 6'2".

You have a restraining order on him not to approach you or contact you in any way.

You work the 2nd shift and get home from work approx. 4:30 a.m.

You are getting out of your car down the street from your home and you are armed.

Suddenly this 30 year old appears and approaches you saying he just wants to talk, only wants to talk.

He has threatened your life verbally and to do great bodily harm many, many times and then he finally assaulted you and you had the restraining order invoked.

And here he comes.

You can see his hands. They are empty and his voice has a pleading tone to it.

But here he comes.

What would you do.

Bayou Rifle
July 11, 2009, 07:39 PM
Get back in the car drive down the block, call 911, and hold my gun while I wait for the cops.

Japle
July 11, 2009, 07:44 PM
Do not engage. Drive away. Call 911.

Japle
July 11, 2009, 07:57 PM
You say this is "a possible scenario in the near future". Do you expect this guy to attack you?

Your response depends on where you live, what kind of criminal record the guy has (though that will matter after the attack), what the cops and the courts have told you, what prompted the restraining order and several other factors you know much better than we do.

I can tell you I would not let said guy get near me no matter what he said or how passive he was. You obviously don't trust him and neither does the judge who signed the order. You must interpret his approach as the prelude to an attack.

Take care.

ChileVerde1
July 11, 2009, 08:50 PM
However,

There is a principle in law enforcement called disparity of force in use of force scenarios. Notice I said Law Enforcement, but I think this provides a sound basis for civilians as well, state laws etc... permitting. If a person can articulate disparity of force ie much stronger, younger attacker, exhaustion, or physical impairment that does not allow you to fight any longer you can make an argument for justification for use of deadly force. You must also articulate means of doing harm, opportunity to do harm, and intent. You must also have a fear of him causing your death or grievous bodily harm, which as we all know can be accomplished by a good but whippin!!

Obviously, approaching you in a casual way has not met any of those so call the "law" and avoid him. Get a report every time you call or start a paper trail with evidence of him violating the protection order. Caveat: should something happen and if it is percieved in any way that you sought a confrontation you SOL (Capital Murder-Manslaughter). Also, unfortunately, keep in mind even an innocent post like this could be used against someone in court. I could very easily see some anti-gun DA seizing a computer and you know the rest... Suddenly you're a depraved "gun nut" who was seeking a "recipe" for murder!

It sounds crazy but believe me it's not far from the truth. Best of luck and I really hope there is a peacefull resolution.

Chile

ZeSpectre
July 11, 2009, 09:03 PM
I agree that you should attempt to break off and get away. You should also go to Staples and buy this excellent voice recorder (http://tinyurl.com/nbvqqs), learn how it works, and keep it on you at all times!

I've posted this before, I'm going to repeat it now.
Thoughts on the worth of a “Restraining Order”

This is the same thing I say every time the phrase “restraining order” comes up.

It is VITALLY important to understands that a "restraining order” is.
It is a -legal document- that gives law enforcement legal grounds to arrest and prosecute the violator after (note that word AFTER) they have ignored it.

What a “restraining order” is NOT.
A “restraining order” is NOT a magic shield that will prevent the ex/psycho from coming around. Fully 80% of the time a restraining order actually serves to incite rage. The order needs to be filed as part of the progression of legal action but the period right after one is filed is EXTREMELY DANGEROUS and you must be on HIGH ALERT and you must protect yourself with extra care!

In spite of the “incitement” danger you should still file a restraining order as part of the process of dealing with an ex or psycho, but then you MUST get a notebook and/or a voice recorder and document EVERYTHING. Every phone call, every encounter, date, time, details. I mean everything, even if you start getting hang-up type phone calls you need to document it. EVERYTHING! I simply cannot stress this enough.

Dwight55
July 11, 2009, 09:13 PM
Give me that set of circumstances, . . . I will try to get out of Dodge, . . . doing the 911 thing as fast as I can.

Barring that as a possibility, . . . I would un-holster, . . . let him see the front end of a 1911 pointed directly at his COM, . . . and tell him in the harshest tone I could muster that he is in violation of the restraining order, . . . I fear he will harm me, . . . and I will stop him if he comes any closer.

He can figure out how I'm going to stop him, . . . but it will happen.

I'm 6'2" and 200, . . . but I'm also 64+, one bad knee, . . . open heart sugery patient, . . . and not in any kind of mood to let my old butt get kicked or killed by some young smart aleck. I came back from 3 trips to SVN, . . . just don't relish the idea of bleeding out on the local streets as someone's punching bag.

May God bless,
Dwight

Sixer
July 11, 2009, 10:26 PM
Shoot him!

Just kidding. If he's violating a restraining order I would probably remind him of that, tell him to keep his distance, and let him say what he needs to say. But that's just me...

sakeneko
July 11, 2009, 11:30 PM
What "Bayou Rifle" and Japle said. Get back in the car, drive off to a safe distance (possibly to a police station directly), call 911, wait with gun handy.

Shooting someone should be a *last* resort, but somebody who has repeatedly threatened you, harmed you, and been slapped with a restraining order does NOT get to walk up and "just talk". He's breaking the law. By approaching you he *IS* threatening you. And, trust me, he knows it. An abuser who has been in therapy and wants to make amends knows what he can and cannot do and obeys the rules. You don't have to give an abuser the benefit of the doubt; he already exhausted all the chances he had coming. But you should not shoot unless he continues to approach and you cannot get out of there any other way.

By the way, a voice-activated tape recorder is a *very* good idea as well. But don't stick around and chat just because you have one. :-)

Kyo
July 11, 2009, 11:48 PM
honestly depends how close he is. If within 20 feet then I draw and scream to get down on the ground multiple times as I back away into my car with weapon still drawn. Then I drive off and call police.
If more then I firmly state that if he gets any closer you will defend yourself and you are calling police regardless as you back into your car and drive off.

If it was me and I had that restraining order I wouldn't even hesitate I would pull out and yell for him to get on the ground. If he didn't comply after the 3rd QUICK yell I would shoot. He already assaulted me. Any closer and I am done. Btw, I am in my 20's and I am only 145 at 5'10". The obvious difference in force there would be overwhelming.

Doc Intrepid
July 12, 2009, 12:30 AM
Like the others said, beat feet.

Get back in the car first and lock the door, before you worry about anything else.

(If he 'just wants to talk', fine...but you're under no obligation to talk to him. Besides, if he picks up something and tries to bust in through the glass you'll catch on quick that the agenda just changed.)

He may approach close to the car before you can start the engine and reverse out of there, but bottom line is that once you're locked inside the car you have a number of advantages.

Drive off somewhere safe and call 911.

These kinds of cases call for (to the best of your ability) scrupulously sticking to the letter of the law, or (as another poster already noted) you will be in just as much legal trouble as the perpetrator.

The idea for a digital recorder is a great idea, and has been recommended for these situations frequently by both police and lawyers. The problems in court cases are that so frequently "who said what to whom, when" comes down to a "he claims/she claims" situation. Can't prove anything - so prosecution is tough. A digital recorder captures who said what to whom, when, and can be admitted as evidence in court.

Two other things you may want to consider are (a) non-lethal options; and (b) consulting a lawyer. Lawyers can do things such as sending registered letters, providing specific legal advice, and communicating with the judge who signed the order and the courts in general regarding issues contingent to your case.

Obviously, if you're confronted its up to you. But the more evidence you can create before a confrontation that you did everything reasonably within your power to head off or avoid the confrontation, the more mitigating and extenuating evidence you can provide after the confrontation in your own defense.

Best with that,

Doc

JohnKSa
July 12, 2009, 12:36 AM
Disparity of force may cover you if you are forced to shoot but count on going to trial if you are forced to shoot an unarmed man. That's a lot of expense, a lot of time lost and, of course, carries a real risk of a murder conviction.

The first TX CHL shooting involved the death of an unarmed attacker. The CHL holder was acquitted after a fairly dicey trial. What kept him out of jail in no particular order:

He didn't talk at the scene.
He suffered permanent injury in the attack.
He was unable to drive away due to being boxed in by traffic.
He was unable to exit his vehicle & run because he was tangled in his seatbelt.
The attacker was very large and the defender was very small.
The defender's attorney was pretty smart. He got some autopsy pics that clearly showed the large size of the attacker and also prominently displayed the attacker's "Born to Kill" tattoo. The jury was reportedly very impressed with the pictures.
The incident that sparked the attack was pretty minor. It was pretty apparent that the attacker was over-reacting--looking for trouble.


What to do?


Be aware--don't let him get close.
If you really think this is a possibility then drive past once or twice or three times (your time & gas are cheap) to check things out and then come back around the block to park after you're satisfied things are safe.
When you park, look around before turning off the engine or getting out.
When you turn the engine off, get out of the car rapidly and head for safety. I see a lot of people who park and then spend another 5 or 10 minutes in their car getting their stuff together/finishing the song/whatever. Get out quickly and have the keys to your house ready so you don't have to fish for them at the door.
If you see him then create distance (use the car to do that if you can) and immediately call the police.
If you end up in a face-to-face encounter try to prevent him from closing. Have a plan for this. Decide in advance what distances and behaviors are going to trigger various reactions from you and stick with your plan to the extent that it is possible and reasonable.
Explore reasonable/legal options for stacking the deck in your favor. Pepper spray, for example, might allow you to get away without shooting him if he won't stop advancing.

At the point that you reasonably believe your life is in imminent danger then do what you have to do. Just be aware that you're almost certainly giving up your life savings if you have to shoot him and you're putting your job, your mental well-being and your freedom at risk.

Lost Sheep
July 12, 2009, 02:49 AM
It seems to me that if you have a restraining order and you talk to him, you may indicate to the Judge and the Police that you don't take the restraining order seriously.

Absolutely call the police as soon as practical. It will help document that he is 1) dangerous and/or 2) is willing to violate the restraining order.

That first one was the only thing I can think of that has not been emphasized. Don't engage him verbally except to say he is in violation and to go away.

Generally in any tactical situation, if you are not the aggressor (and as a civilian, you should never be the aggressor) you are the defender and distance is your friend. So, all the advice you have received so far is sound.

I believe I would drive to the police statin rather than risk him following me.

Lost Sheep.

rmocarsky
July 12, 2009, 04:58 AM
I am the OP.

What are the best means of non-lethal defense available to civilians and the most potent to put 'em down from maybe 10 yards instantly and not endanger yourself of going down beside him due to wind change?

I am serious . . .

I have a real fear that this will probably occur.

What is the BEST most debilitating LEGAL non-lethal crusher available?

BTW . . . I live in Maryland . . .the most Victim-is probably the perp_state in the Country

TailGator
July 12, 2009, 06:36 AM
If you already have a restraining order, the time for talk is over.

I differ just slightly from the previous posts in this: If he knows where you live, I would not drive away from my house and leave my family exposed to whatever rage he develops. You say you park down the street from your home - drive there if it is safer than walking, and making the 911 call ASAP, and tell the dispatcher that you are parked in front of your house with your gun at the ready. If you have enough distance from your assailant to do so safely, get inside the house while staying on the line to 911. Your house is almost certainly more defensible than your car, and you have your family better covered. Leave the car in the middle of the street if you have to - if they give you a parking ticket under these circumstances at 4:30 AM, shame on them, and my bet would be that when a judge heard the "why" they would be in bigger trouble than you. If not, pay the ticket and know that you still did the right thing.

There are other folks on here that no more about pepper spray and such than I and may be able to recommend a specific product, so hopefully they will chime in later this morning.

Take good care of yourself and your family, and God bless you in your time of trouble.

PT111
July 12, 2009, 06:46 AM
When you see him call 911 immediately. If you have a gun on you then you should also have a cell phone on you. As most others have said at least get back in your car and lock the doors. DO NOT shoot him just because he is walking toward you. If you do you are going to have a lot more sleepless nights and a lot less money.

If you have a restraining order against him you can have him arrested, he doesn't have to do anything other that get around you. If he just wants to talk he can do that through his lawyer. As for the recorder if you call 911 and stay on the phone they will have a recording.

scottaschultz
July 12, 2009, 08:46 AM
Kyo wrote: If within 20 feet then I draw and scream to get down on the ground multiple times as I back away into my car with weapon still drawn.

...I would pull out and yell for him to get on the ground. If he didn't comply after the 3rd QUICK yell I would shoot.Wrong answer!

DO NOT shoot him just because he is walking toward you.
+1 for that! The ONLY reason for a civilian to carry a gun is for personal protection, NOT to enforce or uphold the law. That's what LEO's are for.

Scott

AirForceShooter
July 12, 2009, 08:53 AM
Castle and Stand your Ground laws may be applicable.
It has been said a restraing order is a hunting license.

Having said that just tell him to leave.
If he refuses you leave. If he restrains you it's shooting time.

AFS

TailGator
July 12, 2009, 09:08 AM
It has been said a restra[in]ing order is a hunting license.

Oh, Lord. I am pretty sure the one who said that was not a judge or a lawyer. Can we leave it at that?

AirForceShooter
July 12, 2009, 09:15 AM
it's been said by cops.
Never meant to attribute it to a lawyer or Judge.

AFS

OldMarksman
July 12, 2009, 09:32 AM
I draw and scream to get down on the ground multiple times as I back away into my car with weapon still drawn. .... If it was me and I had that restraining order I wouldn't even hesitate I would pull out and yell for him to get on the ground.

And you somehow think that you have the authority to tell him to "get on the ground"? To exhibit a weapon in a threatening manner while doing so?

Think again!

If he didn't comply after the 3rd QUICK yell I would shoot.Good way to give up your clean record, your fortune, your employability, your personal freedom, and your right to ever own a firearm.

Peace officers cannot do that. What makes you think you can?

Something to print and study today:

http://www.useofforce.us/

Mello2u
July 12, 2009, 10:04 AM
rmocarsky

I am the OP.

What are the best means of non-lethal defense available to civilians and the most potent to put 'em down from maybe 10 yards instantly and not endanger yourself of going down beside him due to wind change?

I am serious . . .

I have a real fear that this will probably occur.

What is the BEST most debilitating LEGAL non-lethal crusher available?

Non-lethal force options:
pepper spray - only have a max range of 20 feet
taser - the kind that shoots barbed contacts and wires max range 15 feet
asp or PR24 - contact range

I can't think of a non-lethal force instrument that is effective at 30 feet or more; except perhaps this new device.
http://www.defensereview.com/taser-xrep-extended-range-electronic-projectile-less-lethal-shotgun-round/
http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb197/farwalker/taserlongrange05.jpg

Doc Intrepid
July 12, 2009, 10:26 AM
"I am the OP.

What are the best means of non-lethal defense available to civilians and the most potent to put 'em down from maybe 10 yards instantly and not endanger yourself of going down beside him due to wind change?

I am serious . . .

I have a real fear that this will probably occur.

What is the BEST most debilitating LEGAL non-lethal crusher available?"Unfortunately you are looking for a non-lethal silver bullet - and one does not exist.

10 yards = 30 feet. 30 feet is a long defensive pistol shot, nevermind a reasonable distance for pepper spray, impact weapons, or even Tasers.

And, no matter what weapon you use, (including handguns,) "instantly" is going to be problematic.

If you have 30 feet distance, your best bet is to try to keep it. That is, back away from the threat (or hell, run if you can.) As JohnKSa noted, first your life may be on the line; but if not most certainly every penny you have in the bank, your house, your health, your family, and your freedom are on the line. If running will keep you alive, free, and out of courtrooms, that sounds like a great outcome to me.

There are likely other experts on the board who can provide more details than I can.

But generally speaking, the non-lethal force continuum moves from entirely passive tools such as "light", to more active tools such as "sound" (e.g. personal sirens - they basically serve to draw attention), to obscurants or lacrimators such as OC pepper spray or CN or CS-based aerosol sprays.

The difference between the two can be (but isn't always) important. Basically, Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) is organic. It is extracted from plants.

CN and CS are non-organic. They are chemical compounds. In at least one case I'm familiar with the 'attacker' filed suit against the 'defender' for "assault with chemical weapons" after having been sprayed with CN/CS.

Both are effective, but only to the extent that the attacker is sprayed directly in the eyes, nose, and mouth.

You won't get that effect at 30 feet. These are close range non-lethal tools.

Next on the force continuum are impact weapons such as ball bats, pieces of pipe, golf clubs, or ASP batons. While a Lousiville slugger or one of those Mag-light flashlights with 5 D-cell batteries in it might sound like a great choice, you may want to think twice. In general, while it sounds nuts, using something that was designed for (something else) against a person opens you up for greater liability than if you hit someone with something designed to hit people with. Basically, if you want to carry an impact weapon, select either a Monadnock baton, or an ASP expanding baton, or something else designed to knock the **** out of people. Don't hit someone with a flashlight.

Obviously, all these impact weapons require very close range to use. They don't meet your needs either.

Tasers probably don't either, but they are more effective at say, 7'-9' than a baton. Besides, I'm in my mid-50s also. I'm not going fisticuffs with some younger guy hopped up on either booze or chemicals. He isn't going to get that close in the first place, or we're going to very rapidly progress up the violence continuum... We're really talking about a non-lethal option to use if suddenly confronted at close range.

Most likely, as John noted, your best bet for a non-lethal option is a spray - either OC or OC mixed with CN/CS. Keep in mind that using a non-lethal option does not preclude using lethal force afterward, if the threat does not subside.

It simply indicates to a jury that you were willing to try non-lethal force before resorting to lethal force.

Again, if you indeed "have a real fear that this will probably occur", consult a lawyer. Get your ducks in a row. Communicate with the courts and with the individual (via the lawyer). Whatever money you spend on legal fees BEFORE you shoot someone is absolute chump change compared to the legal fees you will spend AFTER you shoot someone. Anything you can possibly do to avoid having to use lethal violence is much more effective than whatever you'll do after using lethal violence. In this game, the saying "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" is as true as it ever was.

There is really too much on the line in cases like this to just hope it will all go away. It's trite, but 'failing to plan' means 'planning to fail'. When the guy is suddenly in your face, you will react as you've planned to. If you have made no plan...that's probably how effective your response will be. Good luck with your situation.

Doc

skydiver3346
July 12, 2009, 10:28 AM
Your quote: "And somehow, you think you have the authority to tell him to get to the ground'?? :barf: Typical resonse!

Uh, this dirt bag has threatened this man numerous times to do grave bodily harm to him... To the point that he had a restraining order issued against him. Also, this bully shows up at 4:30AM, "just to talk"........ Yeah right. Sounds like he was lying in wait for him to come home from work. Its called stalking I believe, (after being warned by a Judge to stay away from him).

Yes, he should yell at him! Ordering him (in a loud and deliberate command) to stop in his tracks immediately. "Do not approach me any further"! If he does approach, then he should order him to the ground with his weapon drawn. Any closing of the distance after all of that would result in him being dealt with (in any manor deemed necessary to eliminate this threat).

Note: Of course, with the victim being armed he should try his best to retreat and/or get in his vehicle to leave the scene if at all possible. But that may not be feasible, depending on the circumstances. If he can't leave, then what I stated above would be my best response (to this constant intrusion and threat to the man's safety and life). End of story........

OldMarksman
July 12, 2009, 10:58 AM
Your quote: "And somehow, you think you have the authority to tell him to get to the ground'?? Typical resonse!

Yes, probably pretty typical of what your lawyer, the civll attorney of the man at gunpoint, law enforcement officers, and, should it come to that, a prosecuting attorney would say or ask.

Yes, he should yell at him! Ordering him (in a loud and deliberate command) to stop in his tracks immediately. "Do not approach me any further"!

Sounds very reasonable indeed. Lay opinion.

If he does approach, then he should order him to the ground with his weapon drawn.

At that point we start to disagree. What's the objective? To arrest him? What are the requirements in Maryland? Do you really want to take the risk? (Unlawful restraint, perhaps).

Note: Of course, with the victim being armed he should try his best to retreat and/or get in his vehicle to leave the scene if at all possible. But that may not be feasible, depending on the circumstances...

Back in agreement, again. Whether armed or unarmed.

Personally, I believe I would at that point use a Kimber Pepper Blaster (pyrotechnic deployment, and far more effective than a spray).

http://personalsecurityzone.com/cgi-win/order/prodlist.exe/PSZ/?Template=ProdDetail.htm&ProductID=27921

Watch the video.

I carry one of those in addition to a firearm, in case force is required but lethal force may not be.

Now, if that doesn't work and someone bigger and younger keeps coming, there's still a much more serious option if needed.

But it will not involve telling him to get on the ground, much less trying to enforce such a command.

Should deadly force be used, I should think the existence of the restraining order and prior repots of threats, along with the disparity of force, would help a defendant. Lay opinion.

It seems to me that the fact of a pepper shot, and the existence of forensic evidence showing that the assailant continued to advance after that shot, would help still more.

In Maryland, the gun will no doubt not be part of the equation. The pepper blaster will have to suffice.

BlkHawk73
July 12, 2009, 11:05 AM
Get yourself away from the situation. Great, you're armed but once it's brought into play, the situation is escalated. Much better to not have that happen and have things occur that can't be changed. Just because you're armed doesn't mean it's a duty or expectation to stand and fight. Best to avoid and remove yourself from the event.

scottaschultz
July 12, 2009, 01:52 PM
Skydiver3346 wrote: Uh, this dirt bag has threatened this man numerous times to do grave bodily harm to him...

You must be familiar with case because the OP NEVER said that. All he said was: You have been assaulted by a 30 year old weighing about 250 lbs. 6'2".

Maybe you can give us more details on this case so we can give the OP a better answer.

Scott

sakeneko
July 12, 2009, 03:09 PM
You have been assaulted by a 30 year old weighing about 250 lbs. 6'2".

You have a restraining order on him not to approach you or contact you in any way.

<snip>

He has threatened your life verbally and to do great bodily harm many, many times and then he finally assaulted you and you had the restraining order invoked.



You should have kept reading the original post, scottaschultz.

OldMarksman
July 12, 2009, 03:11 PM
Scott, you apparently missed this part:

He has threatened your life verbally and to do great bodily harm many, many times and then he finally assaulted you and you had the restraining order invoked.

I think it's pretty clear that the OP would have great reason to be concerned should the man approach.

OldMarksman
July 12, 2009, 03:49 PM
My reasons for disagreeing with the recommendation to command the person to "get on the ground" are as follows:


I seriously doubt that in most places, a civilian would have any authority to give such a command under the circumstances, or that the other person would have any duty to comply; and I do not know the criminal and civil liability that I might assume by doing so.
Where I live, a civilian who is not in his domicile or automobile may only produce a weapon when it is necessary to do so for lawful self-defense--when the danger is imminent. Might my having had time to tell him to get on the ground indicate that the danger of death of serious bodily harm had not actually been imminent?
Should the use of deadly force prove necessary, I don't think I want to have any part of my statement (made later with the benefit of counsel) used out of context to give the impression that I had fired because the person refused to comply with my command that he get on the ground, rather than in lawful self defense per se. I would rather have simply explained that I had been accosted, that I had tried to disengage, and that ultimately, I had had no choice but to defend myself.
Should a shooting take place, I don't think I want to have any chance at all of forensic evidence indicating that I had fired at somone who was getting down, down, or getting up and was possibly not in the act of attacking me.
Since I cannot use deadly force to enforce such a command, he might well refuse. Might that not then lead to his believing that I would not use deadly force should he attack me, increasing the likelihood of a shooting?
I do not see the point.

Surely I do not need to explain why I disagree with recommendation to use deadly force in the event that the person were to refuse the third QUICK command to get on the ground.

Using deadly force when immediately necessary to prevent death or serious bodily harm is something else again, but I do agree with those who have suggested trying to disengage, and frankly, I would do so even if I lived in a "stand your ground" state.

After that, the less-than-lethal option would come into play.

I hope this appears less argumentative than my previous post and that it proves more helpful.

5whiskey
July 12, 2009, 04:51 PM
I'm sorry if this is a repeat reply. I haven't read the whole thread. Honestly, I would tell him to stop and stay exactly where he is. If he did, then I would follow with "if you really want to talk and it's serious, then I can meet you at the police department tomorrow". If he does not stop, get in the car and drive away while calling 911.


I mentioned the option of actually talking to him in front of LEOs, well, because I assume you know this man to a degree. Know him as in former friend/relative. If he's a neighbor that you don't know well but started a bunch of crap, I probably would still give him a chance to talk if there is a pleading tone in his voice. If there's been some kind of fued (which could lead to him threatening you like he did), he could honestly be sorry and coming to apolagize. If that's the case, I'd let him do it IN FRONT OF LEOs. Even if he apologized, don't let that change anything between you. He's threatened your life. Forgive him, but don't trust him and move on.


In the sweet by and by, at the original encounter during your first post... I would tell him to stop, if not then I would've went back to the car. If he started to chase me, then I would definately begin to resort to the firearm if I thought there was a SHRED OF A CHANCE THAT HE CAUGHT ME BEFORE I COULD GET AWAY. Otherwise, keep the fact that you're carrying low-key and try to handle it without the use of the firearm, but have a plan to draw and be ready.

scottaschultz
July 12, 2009, 06:09 PM
OK, duly noted!

But that doesn't change my opinion that guns in the hands of civilians are for personal protection, not to uphold or enforce the law.

Scott

sakeneko
July 12, 2009, 06:43 PM
But that doesn't change my opinion that guns in the hands of civilians are for personal protection, not to uphold or enforce the law.

I don't think any of us are disagreeing with you on that. (Well, I'm not.) :) But there may be some clarity needed about where the line is between personal protection and enforcing the law.

I understand the objections to telling the guy to get on the ground; that makes sense. But howabout yelling, "STOP! DO NOT COME CLOSER!" IF he fails to stop and you can't just get in the car and drive away (by far the preferable option), continue with, "YOU ARE VIOLATING A RESTRAINING ORDER. IF YOU COME CLOSER, I WILL DEFEND MYSELF!" If and only if he continues to approach after this, draw the gun and shoot or use the pepper spray or employ whatever other less-lethal means of protection you might have.

I think that is focused completely on the self-protection/safety issue and gives the guy more than adequate warning that you view his approaching you as a threat for a compelling reason (the restraining order and, by implication, the events that caused there to be a restraining order) and will react accordingly. If the disparity in age and size is as extreme as the OP indicated, I don't believe that a judge would consider your acti0ns unreasonable, although I am not a lawyer.

What do the rest of you think?

OldMarksman
July 12, 2009, 08:31 PM
I understand the objections to telling the guy to get on the ground; that makes sense. But howabout yelling, "STOP! DO NOT COME CLOSER!" IF he fails to stop and you can't just get in the car and drive away (by far the preferable option), continue with, "YOU ARE VIOLATING A RESTRAINING ORDER. IF YOU COME CLOSER, I WILL DEFEND MYSELF!"

Sounds reasonable to me, but that's a lay opinion.

If and only if he continues to approach after this, draw the gun and shoot or use the pepper spray or employ whatever other less-lethal means of protection you might have.

OK. Bigger, younger guy, "approaching", but apparently not armed, and has made no threats at the time--just said he wants to talk..

From what I've learned, shooting at that point might get you in a lot of trouble. A lay opinion won't help here, I think.

You back away, he keeps coming, then what? Less than lethal option?

And if that doesn't work...

If you do end up using deadly force, I think the issue will be, what evidence can you produce to convince others that said force was immediately necessary to prevent death or serious bodily harm.

Some ideas:


Prior threats and assault, and restraining order.
Bigger, younger guy, who should not have been there.
Forensic evidnce that you tried to evade.
Evidence of your use of less-than-lethal force before shooting.


Thoughts?

bamafan4life
July 12, 2009, 09:13 PM
Id be wondering how i shrunk 6'' and lost 100 pounds., But seriously id not engage unless he attacked me physically.

Kyo
July 12, 2009, 09:14 PM
You might not be under any authority, but the point of a restraining order is for someone to not be near you for your protection. If this person violates that, it is an attack. The given history of the situation would call for a slim to none chance that this person only wants to "talk"
Quick is relative. A quick "Get down on the ground" takes 1 second to say fully. Repeating this should at least make the guy stop if not back away. If not you have a problem. If a person who has such an order ignores you while you have a gun then you have a bigger problem. No one in the right mental state would ignore a person pointing a gun at them.

OldMarksman
July 12, 2009, 09:23 PM
A quick "Get down on the ground" takes 1 second to say fully. Repeating this should at least make the guy stop if not back away.

Well, do you want him to get down on the ground, stop, or back away?

You certainly want him to stop. I should think you would also want him to get away. What is the point in the "quick 'get down on the ground' "?

Wouldn't telling him to get away be more likely to get the desired result?

Firepower!
July 13, 2009, 04:56 AM
I agree with the folks are suggested defusing situation by moving away from the hostile.

HOWEVER, if he gets you by surprise and you are armed, knowing that he has threatened to physically hurt you previously, SHOOT HIM. Let the chips fall where they may.

Nothing is more precious then your life, atleast that is the prevailing principal we beleive in.

I also suggest that you start carrying a non-lethal bullets or a stun gun to avoid this mess, but if push comes to shove use your weapon. After all, it is for SD not a paper weight you carry all day.

pax
July 13, 2009, 09:23 AM
rmocarsky ~

I would recommend a quick walk through www.useofforce.us for an overview of the "rules of the road" for when you can legally fire your weapon.

I'd also (strongly!) recommend that since you do have this significant level of concern with a true threat, that you immediately get some training from a qualified professional firearms instructor. This whole "get advice off the internet" gig really sucks, even on a good forum like TFL. Get your advice from people qualified to give it, who can discuss the situation with you in a much more personalized and detailed manner.

pax

bababooey32
July 13, 2009, 09:28 AM
I seriously doubt that in most places, a civilian would have any authority to give such a command under the circumstances, or that the other person would have any duty to comply; and I do not know the criminal and civil liability that I might assume by doing so.

I don't need authority to issue commands. I can issue any command I want. There may not be any authority behind it, but I can certainly issue commands (I issue them at home all the time - nobody listens, but the commands are issued!). The idea is to get the guy to stop doing what he is doing. By authoritatively telling him to get on the ground, you might get him to listen (he may not know that he doesn't have to follow your orders).

Where I live, a civilian who is not in his domicile or automobile may only produce a weapon when it is necessary to do so for lawful self-defense--when the danger is imminent.

A man with a disparity of force, who has beat you before is apporaching you at 4:30am after (obviously) waiting for you to arrive home. That sounds lilke imminent danger.

Might my having had time to tell him to get on the ground indicate that the danger of death of serious bodily harm had not actually been imminent?

Well, it turns out you can talk while retreating. Or talk while advancing. So talking, in and of itslef, does not "take" any time. And by your reasoning, if he doesn't have "time" to talk, he doesn't have time to do anything but shoot?

give the impression that I had fired because the person refused to comply with my command

In your scenario (where you give no verbal commands to stop), the witnesses will say that you shot without warning. Which is worse? Shooting after telling the attacker to stop, or shooting without telling the attacker to stop?

Since I cannot use deadly force to enforce such a command, he might well refuse. Might that not then lead to his believing that I would not use deadly force should he attack me, increasing the likelihood of a shooting?

Huh? We can be here all day making suppositions about how a theoretical bad guy might respond to various commands. He also MIGHT attack me if I get on the phone, sensing weakness and distraction! He also MIGHT attack me if I retreat, sensing that I do not have the means to defend myself! He also MIGHT have a vest on, rendering my handgun useless. Or he MIGHT get on the ground when I point a gun at him and "command" him to do so.

Seems to me there is no one right answer: If I can retreat, I will...If I can call 911 I will, If I can get him on the ground at gun point because the first two options are not feasable, I will. If he continues to approach me after I have exhausted the above non-lethal option, I may have to shoot.

Also regarding LTL options (pepper blaster etc). I have heard it said that carrying these LTL options for civilians is bad idea. Should you ultimately shoot someone while carrying a pepper blaster, you now must convince the AG and possibly a jury that not only were you in danger, but the danger was such that your pepper blaster would not have worked (subjective, of course). That means that the BG better have had a gun (or you have a great lawyer). If all you have is a firearm, then you don't have to overcome that intermediate hurdle. Just that you were in imminent danger. BTW - I'm not sure I buy this argument, but I have heard it somewhere before....

Brian Pfleuger
July 13, 2009, 09:35 AM
I have heard it said that carrying these LTL options for civilians is bad idea. Should you ultimately shoot someone while carrying a pepper blaster, you now must convince the AG and possibly a jury that not only were you in danger, but the danger was such that your pepper blaster would not have owrked (subjective, of course). That means that the BG better have had a gun (or you have a great lawyer). If all you have is a firearm, then you don't have to overcome that intermediate hurdle.

That's really just another series of assumptions. The DA could just as easily say "Why weren't you carrying pepper spray? You only had a gun..... did you WANT to shoot someone?" Your answer for not using pepper spray that you had on your person could be a simple "There wasn't time. I carry it to avoid shooting someone if at all possible, this time, it wasn't possible."

Besides that, most situations not involving a BG with a gun will provide an option for pepper spray. Sure, an all out unexpected physical attack may not but most muggings or robberies, and certainly the situation in the OP, will give you time for pepper spray.

Additionally, most situations involving an obvious intentional violation of a restraining order will be sufficient cause for use of pepper spray, in and of themselves. In a situation like the OP, a shot in the face with spray and a hasty retreat in the car on the phone to 911 would NOT be questioned.

watchale
July 13, 2009, 10:56 AM
Its 4:30 a.m. ! If it was me & he was in my yard waiting on me & I'm 58 & a little guy. I would tell him to leave ! If he didn't start leaving he would probably get shot ! :eek: But, I'm not 58 I'm 30 & pretty big so, I would just whip his ass. :D

OldMarksman
July 13, 2009, 10:59 AM
I don't need authority to issue commands. I can issue any command I want. There may not be any authority behind it, but I can certainly issue commands (I issue them at home all the time - nobody listens, but the commands are issued!).

Your point?

Is there perhaps some liability associated with giving certain commands?

The idea is to get the guy to stop doing what he is doing. By authoritatively telling him to get on the ground, you might get him to listen (he may not know that he doesn't have to follow your orders).

I agree that that's the idea, so why tell him to get on the ground if the idea is to get him to stop or go away??

A man with a disparity of force, who has beat you before is apporaching you at 4:30am after (obviously) waiting for you to arrive home. That sounds lilke imminent danger.

Certainly sounds like it has the potential to get that way, but the man has approached you in a "pleading" manner. Does that fulfill the jeopardy requirement? Does the existence of the restraining order do so sufficiently? How much will the answers vary by jurisdiction?

In your scenario (where you give no verbal commands to stop), the witnesses will say that you shot without warning. Which is worse? Shooting after telling the attacker to stop, or shooting without telling the attacker to stop?

Witnesses at 4:30 AM? Hmmmm. Well, if it was a "good shoot" and they were not friends of his, you're in luck!

You apparently missed my comment to Skydiver, in which I agreed with his recommendation to firmly tell the person to stop and that I was prepared to defend myself.

Nor did you address my concern. To answer your question, however, yes, I think it probably would be better to have fired at someone from whom the evidence would show I had been trying to escape than to have the authorities selecting from among my words that I said that he refused to get on the ground when I told him to and I shot him, particularly when I am permitted to respond only with "yes" or "no." Lay opinion.

Seems to me there is no one right answer:...

Probably true. There are probably a lot of wrong ones, however.

If I can get him on the ground at gun point because the first two options are not feasable, I will.

I still do not understand the point of getting him on the ground rather than getting him going in the other direction.

Nor do I know what one would expect to do after he was on the ground. I would want him gone, not lying near my driveway.

And if I have gotten him on the ground, what criminal and/or civil liabilities might I have assumed?

Consider the case of trespass. In some jurisdictions, the property owner or tenant is to ask the trespasser to leave, and if he refuses, the remedy is to call the police. Should he try to restrain the trespasser, the property owner or tenant can be charged criminally, and after the trespasser considers his legal options, "then the fun begins."

Here too, the issue may be jurisdiction-specific, and Pax's recommendation that the OP seek qualified advice is a very good one. Another key thing that may be jurisdiction-specific is whether and/or how the existence of a restraining order may influence the determination of when deadly force may be indicated.

Should you ultimately shoot someone while carrying a pepper blaster, you now must convince the AG and possibly a jury that not only were you in danger, but the danger was such that your pepper blaster would not have worked (subjective, of course). That means that the BG better have had a gun (or you have a great lawyer). If all you have is a firearm, then you don't have to overcome that intermediate hurdle. Just that you were in imminent danger.

I should think one would use the pepper blaster first, and if it did not work, I think that fact would go a long way toward establishing the fact of imminent danger. Lay opinion.

nitetrane98
July 13, 2009, 12:39 PM
Don't forget that the restraining order implicitly binds you from contact also. You do not own the restraining order. IOW, you cannot decide to talk to this guy even if he seems very nice and sincere. A judge has prohibited that.
In Texas a LEO could arrest if he were to see the subject in violation of a RO. If not he would refer the incident to the appropriate court where a Contempt of Court summons, or possibly warrant would be issued for the subject to show cause why he should not be held in contempt. You can always carry a copy of the RO and brandish it menacingly in his face.

buzz_knox
July 13, 2009, 01:01 PM
You can always carry a copy of the RO and brandish it menacingly in his face.

That would require some form of contact with the subject. The best answer, as stated above, is to get in the vehicle, get in motion, and dial 911. Hopefully, you can bug the PD and DA until something is done and not have the RO simply become something that aggravates the subject with the gov't doing nothing (which is all too often the case).

Dropping the subject could be justified, but not necessarily on the facts given here. Disparity of force comes into play as does the subject's prior threats, but if you have an alternate means of protecting yourself (assuming you can get into the car and get moving safely) take it.

One question, though, is whether you are leaving anyone behind that the subject might vent on. Is there family in the home involved in whatever led to this situation? If so, are they a target and have you set up a response plan with them?

markj
July 13, 2009, 04:20 PM
You are 58 years old, 165 lbs. 5'9".

I must have shrunk a lot. Was this size like at age 8 or 9.


I would get in the car, lock the doors roll up windows, drive to a safe place call 911. I would not shoot him or talk to him at all, just drive away.

A good dog on a leash would help :) hadda throw that in.

sakeneko
July 13, 2009, 05:32 PM
I would get in the car, lock the doors roll up windows, drive to a safe place call 911. I would not shoot him or talk to him at all, just drive away.

It looks like most of us agree about that. If I were facing the situation he is, I'd give some thought to parking in a place where I couldn't easily be blocked in and could be sure that I'd have the option to drive away.

A good dog on a leash would help. hadda throw that in.

In my opinion there's not much that a good dog on a leash wouldn't help. (Especially my general state of mind; I love dogs.) ;) But even if the OP has a dog, I don't think he's likely to have that dog with him when he's getting home from work at 4:30 AM.

robmkivseries70
July 13, 2009, 07:32 PM
To the OP,
Can you get a remote controlled lighting system installed that can be activated as you pull in your driveway. It would allow you to scan the area before getting out of your car.I wouldn't try to do any more than take the guys picture and get the heck outta there. Hopefully, you'll have some one at home to vouch for the inside of the house or an alarm system to let you know if the house has been penetrated.
Best,
Rob

neon
July 14, 2009, 11:49 AM
Get back in the car and leave while dialing 911.

Sixer
July 14, 2009, 12:02 PM
Let him get close then pistol whip the heck out of him... He probably deserves it.

Ok, well don't actually do that... but definately don't shoot the guy if you DON'T HAVE TO.

rmocarsky
July 14, 2009, 07:16 PM
I do not have a drive way.

I live in a community of townhouses and due to the fact that I get home at an ungodly hour, all the street parking is always taken, leaving me to park in the alley behind the houses.

However, the alley is extremely well lit, but anyone could be hunkered down behind another parked car and not be visible.

Rmocarsky

Brian Pfleuger
July 14, 2009, 08:15 PM
My advice, still, is a can of pepper spray and an immediate exit, leaving no uncertainty. I would be very vocal, I would not respond directly to anything he said.

I would be YELLING (loud enough to wake the neighbors):

"GO AWAY! YOU ARE VIOLATING A RESTRAINING ORDER! DON'T COME ANY CLOSER! I WILL CALL THE POLICE! I HAVE PEPPER SPRAY AND A GUN! I DON'T WANT TO HURT YOU! GO AWAY!"

or something along those lines, but I would only be talking as long as it took me to get in my car without delay, and then I would leave and get on the phone to 911 as soon as I was moving safely.

Assuming the guy appears to be unarmed, I would spray him somewhere around 10 feet if he was approaching slowly. If he popped out closer than that I would spray him immediately and retreat as fast as possible to my car while yelling something similar to the above.

I would NOT under ANY circumstances have a conversation with the guy, or even respond directly to anything he said, from any distance, no way, no how.

MauiDoc
July 14, 2009, 08:27 PM
...and how do you know? If he's tweaked enough to be laying in wait for you, he could have 3 of his biggest ugliest like-minded buddies hunkered down waiting for him to distract you enough that they can 'just talk' to you as well, except they only speak full-contact Braille.

Don't engage. Get back in the car, lock doors, drive, 911, 1911. In that order. Or in my case, 1991A1. :D (If I could carry here. Which I can't :mad:)

Stay alert, be safe, you're in the right--stay there!

Just my $1.17 (inflation)

shurshot
July 14, 2009, 09:07 PM
I'm guessing that the Restraining Order means you want nothing more to do with him? Time for talking is over? Right? He comes at you at 4:30AM... and threatens you (or you feel threatened)?; #1; drive away, call police. Or, #2; pepper mace him, drop kick to the balls, perhaps an extra kick or two (or three!) for good measure, then drive away and call the police. But don't shoot him unless you honestly think he is going to kill you. He might just be real stupid, and want to talk.
I would run it by your local Police Chief, let him know that you are scared, instead of getting advice from folks on here. No offense meant to anybody, but this guy needs to document, talk with a local authority who can verify that he was in fear and asked for help, and protect him self, both now, and after the fact...

Beauhooligan
July 14, 2009, 10:15 PM
"I am the OP.

What are the best means of non-lethal defense available to civilians and the most potent to put 'em down from maybe 10 yards instantly and not endanger yourself of going down beside him due to wind change?

I am serious . . .

I have a real fear that this will probably occur.

What is the BEST most debilitating LEGAL non-lethal crusher available?

BTW . . . I live in Maryland . . .the most Victim-is probably the perp_state in the Country "

My advice: Escape! Get to your car and drive away. Call 911 and ask for an officer to meet you and return with you to the scene. The digital audio recorder idea, or using your cell phone to grab a photo may be all well and good, but don't let acquiring evidence slow you from your primary goal: Escape! I cannot say this to stridently: Do anything you have to do that will keep you from having to shoot.

Once you pull the trigger, you set a series of events into motion that may be, in the long run, worse than you can imagine. I'm old, many times broken, need a cane to walk, and a beating by a street tough could cripple me forever, but I don't know if I would shoot someone over getting my ass whipped. I was in jail once for 4 days. In modern California a woman can accuse you of anything, with no substantiation, and witnesses to the contrary, and if it's on Friday night you don't see a Judge until Tuesday, just to find out no charges are being filed. I just can't think about doing a stretch in prison. I wish more of the "go ahead and shoot" people had spent a few days sleeping on a steel bunk, 10 inches off the floor, with a 1 inch thick foam mattress. Oh yes, the social circle sucks, as does the food. Then there is the whole "spend all you have ever made or will ever make, lose your job and good name, be separated from your family and friends and endure terrible loneliness and depression" thing.


This is pretty much the way I remember it from my time as a cop. If the assailant is not threatening you with lethal force, you may not use lethal force without facing criminal charges. If you pull your gun on him, do not shoot, and there is a witness: you could be charged with assault with a deadly weapon. If your assailant is armed with anything that can be considered to be a lethal weapon, and you shoot and kill him, you may have a good shot at self defense. If you shoot him and he is not armed with a lethal weapon, your trial will turn around if the victim was presenting "reasonable provocation". "Bare fear" does not, in most cases, provide "reasonable provocation". If he is causing such provocation your fall will be for "voluntary manslaughter". If he was not causing such provocation, and say the jury decides that you just got angry enough from the repeated confrontations that you just went and shot him, then your fall will be for "second degree murder". This is not the end of the dissertation, just the tip.:barf:

rmocarsky
July 14, 2009, 10:29 PM
I am the OP.

I am not sure of the name of the device, but those hand-held shockers that supposedly down a foe through voltage, what about them?

If your attackers hands are on your flesh, can the shock be transmitted to you?

Rmocarsky

pax
July 14, 2009, 11:03 PM
rmocarsky ~

Do not even consider a "stun gun." Those are basically worthless, of no value whatsoever. I've been shocked by one many times, voluntarily. It barely hurts and certainly does not incapacitate.

If you are interested in a Taser, get the brand name for sure. A Taser will incapacitate an attacker -- IF -- the hit is solid and everything goes well. It incapacitates the subject not by pain, but by putting a lot of "noise" down the nerves, so that signals cannot get from the brain to the muscles. And it really truly works, under the right circumstances. (And no, you're very unlikely to shock yourself with a Taser. Just doesn't work that way; you can be hands-on with the guy and still not receive a shock yourself.)

However: it isn't a panacea. For a quick overview of the realistic limitations of Tasers for self-defense, see this thread: http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=364467

One more thing. You are so very adamant about non-lethal force, and obviously you've got a specific and probably heartbreaking situation to deal with. However... http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3157626&postcount=23

pax

djohn
July 14, 2009, 11:26 PM
stun guns are up close and personal by direct contact to your attacker.Should the attacker be touching you,the current will not pass to your body.

Stun devices work on high voltage but very low amperage.Amperage is the current that can pass through one person on to the next until it finds a ground at the end.


The voltage produced by stun guns begins to dissipate immediately within musle tissue of a person directly contacted with the current.


If you look it to a stun gun,check out the flashlight stun gun.The light directly in of an attackers eyes can help to your advantage.



Tazers would be the more effective approach.Tazer may have lower voltage but operate on higher wattage.Tazers also attack the muscle and nervous system which makes it more effective then a stun gun.