PDA

View Full Version : when to pull?


austinr09
April 27, 2012, 12:52 AM
just wondering what situation you would have to be in to actually pull your gun on somebody? If someone comes up to you and says give me your wallet or ill beat you up do you pull your gun or try to avoid a fight giving them the wallet? i guess what im asking is at what point are you prepared to use deadly force? does the bad guy have to have a weapon or not?

Gunnut17
April 27, 2012, 01:02 AM
Once I read a book with a chapter pretty much devoted to this, it said that the guy mugging you is probably more experienced(supposing they were careered criminals) and that is was best to not try to shoot.

It said that a good way to get them off your back was to keep a "mugger wallet", with enough money to satisfy the guy.

Or there is the option of being trained in like, 5 martial arts and kicking the crap out of them.:D

austinr09
April 27, 2012, 01:08 AM
I was putting deep thought into this today and talking with a coworker who has his ccw as well. we both couldnt decide whether it was best to let them have said wallet/watch/cell phone or actually pull the gun hoping they turn and run. im not sure I would feel too great later on if i ended someones life over some money in a wallet. obviously if the BG has a weapon its a different story but lets just assume he hasnt presented a weapon.

OkieCruffler
April 27, 2012, 02:16 AM
I pull when I've decided there is no other way to deescelate the situation. And I don't pull to show the pistol, I don't say, "I have a gun", I don't point it at you and tell you to put your hands up. If I pull my pistol, I pull the trigger, all other options have been removed from the table.

ChaseReynolds
April 27, 2012, 02:54 AM
I would only pull if I plan on pulling the trigger. The last thing I want is for some robber to remember that I am carrying and just shoot me from behind and rob me when I am dead.

dab102999
April 27, 2012, 03:58 AM
Had a ccw years ago and presently am getting another. Always told myself that in any situation children and wife stay behind me, give them what they want, run if needed, and only draw to fire, and only fire when no other option. Possestions r just that. My life aint worth loosin over anything. And dont think i want to take a life over a cell phone or wallet. But if a weapon is drawn that is a different story. Then he will be taking the chance that i am better and faster. And if my wife is with me he will have another gun to deal with also.

TexasJustice7
April 27, 2012, 06:38 AM
If they run off with my TV set from my home, I would not draw and fire, unless I caught them breaking into my home where I would stop them, if I were inside.

If they want my wallet, unless they have the drop on me, I would draw.
Whether I fire or not, is up to them. It depends on what price they are willing to pay to take the wallet. If I am not prepared to protect my person,
my wallet, my life and my family, then I would never have bothered to
obtain a CHL nor would I bother to carry a handgun. But of course some places handguns are not allowed except for police and for criminals.
I prefer living in Texas where I have the right to defend myself and my property. That being said, I won't attempt to outdraw someone who has the drop on me.:)

TexasJustice7
April 27, 2012, 06:56 AM
gunnut17: It said that a good way to get them off your back was to keep a "mugger wallet", with enough money to satisfy the guy.

Or there is the option of being trained in like, 5 martial arts and kicking the crap out of them

Some of us old men are not in shape and too old to defend using martial arts. The mugger wallet might be a good idea, but I have room for only one wallet. I carry both my money, my dl, my permit, my debit/credit cards, as well as my disabled daughter's texas benefit card. I cannot lawfully allow someone else to use her card, so unless they have the drop on me the price for taking it will be higher than they will want to pay, whether they are armed or not. ;)

OldMarksman
April 27, 2012, 10:41 AM
Posted by austinr09: just wondering what situation you would have to be in to actually pull your gun on somebody? In most jurisdictions, one may not lawfully "pull a gun on somebody" unless the use of deadly force is justified.

There are some exceptions. In Minnesota and Texas, a firearm may be displayed under circumstances in which force is justified.

If someone comes up to you and says give me your wallet or ill kick your @$$ do you pull your gun or try to avoid a fight giving them the wallet? i guess what im asking is at what point are you prepared to use deadly force? does the bad guy have to have a weapon or not?Justification requires immediate necessity, and immediate necessity only exists in the event of an imminent threat by someone reasonably thought to have or exhibit (among other things) the ability to inflict death or serious bodily harm.

That ability can either involve a weapon or something known as a disparity of force. The latter include the following:


Male ttacker, female victim
Large attacker, much smaller victim
Infirm defender, fit attacker
Attacker with superior martial arts skills known to the defender
Disparity of numbers


Those conditions do not "provide permission" for the use of deadly force; they simply help support a defense of justification.

It's often an uphill fight.

Giving up your wallet is almost always going to be the less costly option by far, but do not let your guard down when doing it.

totaldla
April 27, 2012, 10:52 AM
Always know the laws of your state. Use of force varies.

In my state, if I pull my weapon then somebody is going to die, or I'm putting it back in the safe. I'm not in the cop business and I don't have to arrest anybody.

In my opinion, never pull your gun as a warning as it is a great way to get killed.

MLeake
April 27, 2012, 11:06 AM
I would modify that post, totaldla, in at least a couple ways.

First, I wouldn't say "somebody is going to die." That could be taken as premeditation to kill. I would say something more on the lines of "I would only draw my weapon if I were prepared to use it, and if I have to use it, I will shoot to stop."

I also wouldn't say a gun can't be used as a warning; there are times when that is legally and morally appropriate. The danger is in assuming that the warning will be all that is needed, or in drawing without being willing and ready to actually employ the weapon should that become necessary.

Bear in mind that statistics indicate 90% or so of defensive gun uses will end with no shots fired; the great majority of cases would not legally or morally justify shooting if the BG ceases his immediate threat, and so a mindset of "I will shoot if I draw" could cause serious problems in around 90% of cases.

That still means there are around 10% odds that if one draws, one will have to fire.

mete
April 27, 2012, 11:28 AM
Pull the gun immediately ,tell him to back off, then immediately call Cops.
Things can happen very quickly and as long as your gun is holstered you give him an advantage.
Think how many times you have heard of a case where a person gives up his wallet then is murdered ! Do you want to take the chance? Remember more and more BGs are on drugs with violent irrational behavior..

OldMarksman
April 27, 2012, 12:45 PM
Posted by Mleake: I would say something more on the lines of "I would only draw my weapon if I were prepared to use it, and if I have to use it, I will shoot to stop."

I would put it this way: "I would only draw my weapon if it were lawful to do so and if I were prepared to use it; if I have to use it, I will shoot to stop."

I also wouldn't say a gun can't be used as a warning; there are times when that is legally and morally appropriate.In a couple of states a gun may be drawn if force is justified; one other state (Arizona) has a provision for the "defensive display of a weapon."

The danger is in assuming that the warning will be all that is needed, or in drawing without being willing and ready to actually employ the weapon should that become necessary.Yes indeed.

Bear in mind that statistics indicate 90% or so of defensive gun uses will end with no shots fired; the great majority of cases would not legally or morally justify shooting if the BG ceases his immediate threat, and so a mindset of "I will shoot if I draw" could cause serious problems in around 90% of cases.Well put.

TexasJustice7
April 27, 2012, 01:11 PM
OldMarksman: I would put it this way: "I would only draw my weapon if it were lawful to do so and if I were prepared to use it; if I have to use it, I will shoot to stop."

Thats for sure, because if you pull the weapon you best be prepared to use it, because some of the BG's are high on dope in some cases. So it best not be a bluff. And "if it is lawful to do so", thats the rub. One best know the laws of the state your in. In texas one may use it on a felon or thief when
a felony is committed at night, to prevent their escape. While in another state, that same person who draws the weapon will face prison time.

And even in States like Texas if you shoot an unarmed intruder in your home, you are not allowed to keep shooting him repeatedly once he is no longer a threat. But you are not required to allow him a shot at disarming you in a fist fight before using deadly force.

:)

Frank Ettin
April 27, 2012, 01:55 PM
Remember that if you use your gun, even if it is ultimately determined that you were legally justified, you will find yourself involved with the criminal justice system. That is never an easy thing. Depending on the circumstances and how clear your justification was, the experience will run any where from "pretty annoying" to "extremely annoying and expensive" to "horribly stressful, life changing and ruinously expensive."

If you need to use your gun to prevent immediate, otherwise unavoidable death or grave bodily harm to yourself or a loved one, you will have no choice. You will need to act and act decisively. But avoidance is preferable.

Intentional violence against another human (which is what the use of force in self defense is) is not taken lightly by our legal system. Nor should we take it lightly.

relaxing
April 27, 2012, 09:17 PM
Great discussion. I just in fact got my CCW, completed a pistol class, even though I thought I might be ok, its been years since I have been interested in arms and shooting and did not think myself safe to carry.

Just today I was thinking of such a scenario, although in my minds role play I tried to work through what I would do if someone threaten me with a lesser lethal force during a hold up than firearms, ie. maybe a BG pulled a knife. I don't think I would pull my firearm even with that before throwing my wallet to the ground below their feet and running as fast as I could while organizing my thoughts about possibly using lethal force.

First the BG has to choose between chasing me or picking up what they would want, the cash. If I gained some distance and the BG went away, no life taken, cancel the charge cards, say bye bye to any cash and all is well. But if the BG then decided to pursue me further... draw, aim and fire.

Of course its all subjective there are so many variables that would be at play.

-Scott

Edward429451
April 27, 2012, 09:39 PM
Would it be too succinct to say that when to draw is when they make you?

I've drawn a gun 3 times now. Every time it was not a conscious decision, I just drew because of what was happening. A sudden emergency.

Vermonter
April 27, 2012, 10:34 PM
When in fact it should be more of a what exactly is justifiable use of force kinda thing. The fact is that more knowledgeable men than I have written deaths of articles on this very thing.

Rather than quote them or pretend to speak for them I will refer you to one who has been my source on this exact type of information.

Masaad Ayobe has written a few texts that may help the OP. I have read them and took away some useful knowledge.

http://ayoob.com/cgi-bin/miva?Merchant2/merchant.mv+Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=Ayoob&Category_Code=AMAB

relaxing
April 27, 2012, 10:35 PM
Edward, man that is concise and to the point!.

TheNocturnus
April 28, 2012, 08:56 AM
Push them away, draw and fire. They are committing a felony act against me and I am not sure whether they are going to kill me after they get what they want.

The BG signed his rights away as soon as he threatened me. I have been robbed 3 times before at gunpoint and it is never again going to go down with me giving in and handing my stuff over. Next person that tries to rob me is getting shot at.

OldMarksman
April 28, 2012, 09:58 AM
Posted by Nocturnus31: Push them away, draw and fire. They are committing a felony act against me and I am not sure whether they are going to kill me after they get what they want.What you are not sure about will not go very far at all toward convincing anyone that your belief that deadly force had been immediately necessary to protect yourself against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, or to prevent a forcible felony, had been reasonable.

The BG signed his rights away as soon as he threatened me.Not according to the law.

Next person that tries to rob me is getting shot at.Let us hope that, should that happen, you are able to introduce sufficient evidence to support a successful defense of justification.

In a situation in which the evidence available after the fact is ambiguous, your having made that statement could help bring about your conviction.

briandg
April 29, 2012, 12:54 AM
Give me your money or I will physically attack you.

(i draw my gun)

"don't make me kill you."

When a person threatens me with physical harm, he has threatened a person whose arthritis and joint problems preclude normal means of self defense.

What are my choices? Giving him the money is irrelevant, because the threat of violence is already there. I don't know if he is a man of honor who will walk off with my wallet and not hurt me. He's a bad guy, so I expect he will be a BIG FAT LIAR.

so, leaving out a whole lot of "what ifs" and arguing, once I genuinely believe I am probably going to be attacked, the weapon comes out. Once that person makes any sort of move that makes me believe that I am about to be attacked and maybe killed or seriously injured,

I WILL SHOOT HIM, AND EVERYBODY IN SIGHT THAT IS WITH HIM THAT PRESENTS THE SAME THREAT.

This isn't a movie, it's not a script, and I'm not james bond. If someone puts my life in danger, I'm not going to bargain with him, argue, threaten, or waste even one second stalling. If I say "put down the knife or I'll shoot you" in about seconds the knife will be on the ground. either he'll drop it, or I'll shoot him.

Then, I will tell the cops that i was in danger, and I did the only thing that was certain to keep me from getting hurt. Hopefully, I will not be prosecuted.

Oh, and if he has a gun? I will most likely shoot him as soon as he points it at me.

ClydeFrog
April 29, 2012, 01:00 AM
In most places, in order to justify applying lethal force(pulling out or firing a loaded firearm), you(the armed citizen) must have a reasonable fear for your safety. If a thug is unarmed or doesn't seem threatening, I'd avoid pulling out a gun. IF the subject or subjects are armed, following or harassing you or you feel you have no ave of escape(way to leave or avoid the situation), then you can be justified in drawing a weapon.

For context, I'd be aware of your surroundings too and know that many "eyewitnesses" or "by-standers" may NOT come to your aid/be honest with responding officers.
You may stumble across some "street crazy" person or bum that a area's residents may side with or defend in a critical incident. It sounds unrealistic but as a armed security officer in urban areas & some low end places, I can tell you that's exactly what occurs.

CF

TexasJustice7
April 29, 2012, 06:27 AM
BrianDg: When a person threatens me with physical harm, he has threatened a person whose arthritis and joint problems preclude normal means of self defense.

This isn't a movie, it's not a script, and I'm not james bond. If someone puts my life in danger, I'm not going to bargain with him, argue, threaten, or waste even one second stalling. If I say "put down the knife or I'll shoot you" in about seconds the knife will be on the ground. either he'll drop it, or I'll shoot him.

Then, I will tell the cops that i was in danger, and I did the only thing that was certain to keep me from getting hurt. Hopefully, I will not be prosecuted.

Regarding your comment, I am very curious as to what state you live in?
I can sympathize with any physical impairment that puts the attacker at an advantage. I have a herniated area in my stomach which if I allowed an attacker to strike me there it would likely kill me, and medically documented.

I agree with your sentiment too, and there are many states that would be a problem for you. Even in Texas your case would likely go before a grand jury which would likely nobill it. Lots of folks don't like our laws in Texas, including the use of deadly force to stop theft at night or a felon from running off with the loot. Even in Texas if the worst happens your gun will be taken while it is investigated, and you will have to spend money for an attorney if it goes to a grand jury and likely will.

In that light I am curious as to what happens while it is being invesitigated, and if it goes before a grandjury. Do you suppose the CHL or CWP you have
might be suspended during till such time as the matter is resolved. I don't think they take all your guns in Texas, but they take the one involved in
the incident. Some of the other states might take them all.

I guess if I ever move to one of the other states like that I would just have to sell my guns which I do not intend to do, but no use having them if one
can't stop any kind of storng armed robbery.

:D

Manson
April 29, 2012, 07:05 AM
I would like to add two simple but important points to this thread.

Know your state laws.

Be careful what you say on a public media.

TheNocturnus
April 29, 2012, 08:05 AM
@Oldmarksman

I'm 32 and disabled with a back injury. If someone threatens to beat me up there is a great chance they could do it with ease and cause great harm to my already fragile body.

As the OP stated "...someone comes up to you and says give me your wallet or ill beat you up..." that sounds like imminent harm to me.

I stand by my statement. I don't want to be beaten to death or become more disabled than I already am. I will shoot to stop the threat against me. I know my state laws and am smart enough to know that if the shoot is not justified then I won't shoot.

Marquezj16
April 29, 2012, 08:31 AM
This scenario happened in my area. As an older lady was getting in her car, a thief tried to snatch her purse. She drew her gun and the criminal ran away. The lady was not prosecuted.

I will draw if I feel like I am in "danger of bodily harm" and/or "to prevent a crime" from happening. I will shoot if my "life or the lives of my love ones are in imminent danger."

I'll have to look those terms up in my state laws to know what those circumstances are.

OldMarksman
April 29, 2012, 09:39 AM
Posted by Nocturnus31: @Oldmarksman

I'm 32 and disabled with a back injury. If someone threatens to beat me up there is a great chance they could do it with ease and cause great harm to my already fragile body.

As the OP stated "...someone comes up to you and says give me your wallet or ill beat you up..." that sounds like imminent harm to me.

I stand by my statement. I don't want to be beaten to death or become more disabled than I already am. I will shoot to stop the threat against me. I know my state laws and am smart enough to know that if the shoot is not justified then I won't shoot.Disabled with a back injury? Would that not constitute one of the disparity of force determinants discussed in Post #9?

It would not authorize you to shoot, but it would go a long way toward justifying your use of necessary deadly force against an assailant who did not have a weapon.

Posted by Marquezj16: This scenario happened in my area. As an older lady was getting in her car, a thief tried to snatch her purse. She drew her gun and the criminal ran away. The lady was not prosecuted.Again, that would seem to constitute a clear disparity of force--elderly female victim, male attacker.

Two points:

You are describing a robber, not a "thief"; that is a very important distinction in the eyes of the law.
"Was not charged" is good, but is never final; one always remains potentially subject to criminal charges until and unless one has been (1) tried and acquitted or (2) pardoned. Further proceedings are most probably very unlikely here, but consider the recent case of the father and son vigilante team in Georgia: heroes one day, jailbirds the next.


I will draw if I feel like I am in "danger of bodily harm" and/or "to prevent a crime" from happening.

Here's what you should be thinking:

I will draw if I feel like have reason to believe that I am in imminent "danger of death or serious bodily harm" and/or "to prevent a serious crime" (depending upon the laws in my state) from happening.

That reason will be assessed and judged by others: investigators, the charging authority, and possibly, a jury.

Should they not agree, the charges will vary by state; something like aggravated assault is most likely.

Again, you have a little more leeway in at least a couple of states (namely, Minnesota and Texas).

Frank Ettin
April 29, 2012, 09:49 AM
Remember, intentionally hurting to killing another human is not taken lightly by our legal system (or by out fellow humans, for that matter). Even in those States whose laws may allow a use of lethal force to stop a crime from happening to be justified, it only applies to very serious crimes (typically violent felonies).

Glenn Dee
April 29, 2012, 09:50 AM
Great thread

IMO a huge component of this kind of a situation is being left out of the conversation. That is situational awareness. In my opinion this is what will save your bacon. Once the robber is upon you, and threatening you, your options are very limited. My experience is that most people who will threaten violence, will use that violence. Sometimes without warning. It's just as easy, and less problematic to strike someone with a lead pipe than it is to threaten the action and chance resistance. The take is the same. Most violent criminals I've met almost never consider getting caught, so the criminal penalties are of no consiquence to them. As another poster stated...most armed robbers, and muggers are professionals at their trade.

Again situational awareness is the best defense in a armed robbery as I see it. Second IMO is the choice of firearm, and method of carry. Carrying a service sized weapon can be a disadvantage. Once a person believe they may have been chosen as a victim for a mugging or robbery, with a smaller firearm they can choose to cover the subject their hand on their firearm in a pocket or purse. With some small revolvers they have the option to shoot through the pocket or purse. This tactic could be used with a larger handgun as well, but might require the use of a bag or newspaper or something else that would cover the handgun. I dont believe any of these technique could be considered brandishing, or menacing. There's even a name for them. It's called "Covering from the loaded position"

When to pull?.. My opinion is to maintain situational awareness, and to pull/cover as soon as the danger is percieved.

totaldla
April 29, 2012, 11:21 AM
I would modify that post, totaldla, in at least a couple ways.

First, I wouldn't say "somebody is going to die." That could be taken as premeditation to kill. I would say something more on the lines of "I would only draw my weapon if I were prepared to use it, and if I have to use it, I will shoot to stop."

I also wouldn't say a gun can't be used as a warning; there are times when that is legally and morally appropriate. The danger is in assuming that the warning will be all that is needed, or in drawing without being willing and ready to actually employ the weapon should that become necessary.

Bear in mind that statistics indicate 90% or so of defensive gun uses will end with no shots fired; the great majority of cases would not legally or morally justify shooting if the BG ceases his immediate threat, and so a mindset of "I will shoot if I draw" could cause serious problems in around 90% of cases.

That still means there are around 10% odds that if one draws, one will have to fire.

I disagree and here is why:


I'm not talking to anybody but myself. I have to have a clear line in my mind when I would use lethal force. The gun never comes out unless that line has been crossed. I can always choose to not shoot while I'm putting the front sight in place - but only because the situation has changed.
"Shoot to stop" is the politically correct way of dealing with the media. I must adopt the mindset that if I shoot, the other guy is gonna die - no exceptions because that is what a handgun does. If I can't accept that then I should be carrying pepper spray and/or a tazer.
Presenting a firearm doesn't magically scare away folks, but it does escalate the situation. I've worked with bad guys and very few are scared by looking down the barrel. But waving a gun around is a great way to get yourself killed - and the other guy is justified in doing it.
I'm not in the Cop business. Ever. Period. I don't arrest people. My gun is on my hip to save my life in a situation I can't otherwise get out of.


Don't confuse what you say to the Cops after a shooting with the mindset you must have if you are going to pull a weapon.

OldMarksman
April 29, 2012, 11:40 AM
Posted by totaldla: I have to have a clear line in my mind when I would use lethal force. The gun never comes out unless that line has been crossed.Good. In the vast majority of jurisdictions, that is the threshold.

I can always choose to not shoot while I'm putting the front sight in place - but only because the situation has changed.I do not believe that that differs from what MLeake articulated, which was that the mindset "I will shoot if I draw" can lead to serious consequences.

"Shoot to stop" is the politically correct way of dealing with the media.Rather, it is the lawful objective of the shooter, civilian or LEO; that the other person may die at the scene or some time later is irrelevant to the defense of justification, but shooting after the threat has been stopped is not justified.

You should not be "dealing with the media" at any time after an encounter involving the use of force.

I must adopt the mindset that if I shoot, the other guy is gonna die - no exceptions because that is what a handgun does. There are all kinds of exceptions. Handgun wounds are most often not fatal.

Presenting a firearm doesn't magically scare away folks, but it does escalate the situation. I've worked with bad guys and very few are scared by looking down the barrel. But waving a gun around is a great way to get yourself killed Again, you are in agreement with MLeake: "The danger is in assuming that the warning will be all that is needed, or in drawing without being willing and ready to actually employ the weapon should that become necessary."

- and the other guy is justified in doing it.Only if your presentation had been unlawful in the first place.

I'm not in the Cop business. Ever. Period. I don't arrest people. My gun is on my hip to save my life in a situation I can't otherwise get out of.Words to live by.

Brian Pfleuger
April 29, 2012, 11:43 AM
While its obvious that someone who forces us to shoot may die and we must realize that likelihood, from the perspective of the defender what's matters is not what might happen but what our purpose is when pulling the trigger.

It is splitting hairs in some ways, to be sure, but it is an important distinction. Our intention is not based on kill or not kill. It is to end the threat. Whether the aggressor dies or not is not the point. They very well might die, they may very well not. Their blood is on their own hands, they are responsible for their fate.

We are not killers, we are "escapers". When our lives are on the line, escape is what matters. What happens to those who forced the action is not relevant, at that moment.

Frank Ettin
April 29, 2012, 01:05 PM
I'm not talking to anybody but myself....No, here you're talking to everyone in the world with Internet access. And what you have written here has become a permanent record.

..."Shoot to stop" is the politically correct way of dealing with the media. I must adopt the mindset that if I shoot, the other guy is gonna die - no exceptions because that is what a handgun does...[1] Shooting to stop is more than just "politically correct." It is the legal limit on your justified use of lethal force. If you have stopped the threat, you are not justified in continuing to use lethal force against the aggressor, even if he is still breathing. If your your mindset is that your aggressor is going to die, and you act on it and finish him off, you have committed murder.

[2] Killing someone is not what a handgun does. Most people who are shot survive.

[3] Yes, if you use your handgun in a way best calculated to effectively stop a threat, there is an excellent chance that the aggressor will die. But the desired result is that he stop, not that he dies.

Glenn Dee
April 29, 2012, 02:43 PM
THANK YOU FRANK ETTIN

Very, very well put sir...

totaldla
April 29, 2012, 05:31 PM
No, here you're talking to everyone in the world with Internet access. And what you have written here has become a permanent record.


That's fine. Everything I've said is justifiable. But everything anybody says can be twisted in a civil suit - such is life. Carrying a gun is serious business and I believe it is important to think it through.



[2] Killing someone is not what a handgun does. Most people who are shot survive.

[3] Yes, if you use your handgun in a way best calculated to effectively stop a threat, there is an excellent chance that the aggressor will die. But the desired result is that he stop, not that he dies.


I guess we should stop for a moment and consider what "lethal force" means, because there is a huge legal difference between lethal and non-lethal force. Every state considers employing a handgun to be lethal force and the outcome of such force is death. From a criminal law perspective, you have demonstrated intent to kill when you employed a firearm. If your shooting is ruled bad, you will be charged with crimes that declare that you intended to kill. I'm harping on this because "shoot to stop", a PC phrase, can mislead folks in a bad way. I totally agree with you that "coup de grace" is murder, and I don't want to split that hair, but I want folks to realize that when they shoot, it is either (a) justified self-defense or (b) a level of murder (serious prison time - think Zimmerman).

If somebody is uncomfortable with using lethal force, and I understand that perfectly, then they should be carrying pepper spray and/or a tazer. If you pepper spray somebody unjustfiably, you get charged with simple assault.

I don't think we are disagreeing at all. I just think we are dissecting the hairs many ways - and that is a good thing. Thanks for your input. :)

briandg
April 29, 2012, 06:02 PM
I live in missouri. Knowing some of the state laws won't change my reactions. I won't draw except as a last resort. I won't shoot except as a last resort. I will shoot until threat is ended.

What other choices are left other than those? More to the point, would I ever, even in my stupidest moments, say that maybe I overreacted? never.

I ended that by saying
hopefully, I won't be prosecuted.

I am going to analyze the situation carefully, act carefully and logically, do what I have to do, and hope for the best.

The very last thing I'm going to do is make things harder on myself by any inappropriate behavior.

ClydeFrog
April 29, 2012, 06:10 PM
My state is fairly clear on how it defines lethal force(deadly force).
In short, armed citizens can only use a firearm to defend themselves or others in events where their life or physical safety are in immediate jeporady.
Protecting personal property is NOT considered a valid reason to use lethal force. My state's officials also say firearms can only be used to kill a subject(deadly force). There is no; "shooting to wound" or "aiming for less lethal areas". If you draw a loaded firearm you need to be ready to use lethal force.
Now, don't mistake the lethal force standard to mean you'd stand over a felon who attacked you & shoot them 15-16 times. But if you draw a weapon, you should be fully ready to use it AND to justify your acts later on.
This is why skill training and being fully aware of your area's gun/use of force laws is so important.
As my state's Sec of State wrote in the Div of Licensing handbook for concealed carry holders; "Having a concealed carry license does NOT grant you license to use lethal force."
ClydeFrog

Edward429451
April 29, 2012, 06:17 PM
Understand that the enemy is not the enemy in his own eyes ;this may offer you an opportunity to make him your friend. If not, you can kill him without hate, and quickly. Only if it's necessary, though. Having a justified opportunity to shoot someone, doesn't mean you should. If there's the slightest chance that you can...I dunno, walk with God for a moment and find that path of no violence out, then you really win. But it's really up to the perp. He makes you pull the trigger or he opens a hole so to speak.

So far so good!

MLeake
April 29, 2012, 06:27 PM
totaldla, you may know what you mean by "shoot to kill," as in "shoot to stop, but realize that results could be lethal, and that regardless of outcome you have employed deadly force."

However, your audience does not know that, unless you so state it from the outset.

For one thing, that creates a potential hole that you might have to one day plug. Changing your wording could avoid creating that potential hole in the first place.

For another thing, a person who doesn't understand your full intent but who only catches the apparent meaning could take that as advice to always shoot to kill. I hear such things from people all the time, on the lines of "My concealed carry instructor told me that if I draw, I have to shoot, or I'll be arrested for brandishing." I doubt the instructor meant that, but that has been the takeaway for many new CCW carriers I've met, based on conversations with people I've met at different courses.

What I'm getting at is that what you look at as "splitting hairs," I look at as you creating potential problems for not only yourself, but also for poorly trained people who may stumble across your post.

briandg
April 29, 2012, 06:28 PM
Having a justified opportunity to shoot someone, doesn't mean you should.

That is as well said as it possibly could be.

To turn it around, the guy with the .45 aimed can also say "you don't have to do this. You can put down the knife and go home to your family."

There has to be at least a moment for soul searching and checking for alternative courses in most shootings. Ignore that opportunity at your own risk. With castle doctrine, I may never be prosecuted for shooting the drunken fool who comes through my front door threatening to beat me to death because I'm in his house, but in my own conciense, I'll be guilty.

Shooting a person isn't an opportunity, it has to be a well thought out absolute necessity for legal, conscientous, and "christian" reasons.

Obviously that matters very little to some people, but it should

.

TheNocturnus
April 29, 2012, 07:01 PM
Nevermind.

Michael4yah
April 29, 2012, 07:48 PM
Gunnut, do you live in New York? Lets all take a trip down memory lane. In the good ole days (and they were awfully good) when a person decided to be bad and rob someone he'd get away with it till he ran into someone who wouldnt give up his money. In that case one of three things would happen. The robber would give up and go away ( and that didnt happen often) or he would shoot/harm the victim, or the victim would shoot or kick the ever lovin crap out of him. You see sooner or later the bad guy would get whats coming to him and he'd stop or move on to greener pastures. But today with all this liberal bull crap being taught people (like dont fight back) the robber just stays where he's at because its become a target rich environment. The only way you can stop this is by standing up. If I was going to give the guy my wallet it would be a distraction that would give me time to draw and shoot him. Heave it to the side without being obvious, even say Im sorry or toss it at his feet. Most are so overconfident at that point that they take their eyes off you. Most havnt themselves decided whether or not they would shoot you. Its at this point that you have the maximum advantage. If you dont have the opportunity you can always wait till he turns to leave. Even catch up to him on the next block. Im old enough that Id rather shoot it out than be a victim. My kids are grown and its time for me to do what I can for society. There you have it, what say you?

PawPaw
April 29, 2012, 07:49 PM
In my state, lethal force can be used when the victim has reason to believe that he is in danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm, or in defense of another if the victim believes anther person is in danger of death or great bodily harm.

Michael4yah
April 29, 2012, 08:21 PM
Brian said..."Our intention is not based on kill or not kill. It is to end the threat."

Brian thats too broad a statement. Do you know how much training each marine has to go through to turn them into killers? A LOT. If you start putting vague wording into a do or die situation many may die that shouldnt. You cant draw a weapon and have all these "Less than lethal" ideas running through your head. It all happens in a split second and if your not aiming at center mass your wife may be planning the funeral instead of the state. I cant tell you how many times Ive heard people say that wounding an individual is a better choice etc.
2nd scenario, Are you going to draw and wait till you see if the other guy backs down. Thats mexican standoff insanity. I believe that if I'm facing an armed individual that is threatening me, Im going to kill him. The only caveat I would add to that is that if the person is turned in such a way that I would have complete advantage over him, Issue the command to freeze and allow him/her to toss the weapon. If that person turns without doing so I will kill them. I have been in gun point situations, Its all about control and a clear mental attitude.

Brian Pfleuger
April 29, 2012, 08:29 PM
You're missing the context of my statement.

The point is that you're not trying to kill OR *not* to kill.

You're trying to end the threat.

Whether the threat dies or doesn't is not relevant, at that moment.

Stopping the threat as fast as possible is the one and only goal.

The fact that stopping the threat necessitates shooting the threat in places that are very likely to kill the threat is a fact of life, not choice.

Target areas are targeted because they are the places that are most likely to force the threat to stop. They also happen to be the most likely places to cause death but death is not the point. Escape is the point.

OldMarksman
April 29, 2012, 08:36 PM
Posted by Michael4yah: Issue the command to freeze and allow him/her to toss the weapon. If that person turns without doing so I will kill them.Read Post # 34 as many times as it takes to understand it, and rethink you position.

Rethink your position, and document clearly that you have done so.

Frank Ettin
April 29, 2012, 09:13 PM
...Every state considers employing a handgun to be lethal force and the outcome of such force is death....Yes, a handgun is lethal force. But the outcome of the use of lethal force is not necessarily death. In the law, lethal force is viewed as force likely to cause death or great bodily injury.

Effectively stopping an assailant who has manifest the intent and ability to cause you death or great bodily injury will most likely require that you use a degree of force likely to cause death or great bodily injury. But that is not the same thing as intending to kill.

...From a criminal law perspective, you have demonstrated intent to kill when you employed a firearm...Provide some citation to proper legal authority for that contention. It is, in fact, not true.

...I'm harping on this because "shoot to stop", a PC phrase, can mislead folks in a bad way...Not true. All established trainers and school talk in terms of shooting to stop.

...You cant draw a weapon and have all these "Less than lethal" ideas running through your head... You have completely failed to understand the point. No one has suggested any "less than lethal" ideas. If one effectively employs a gun to stop a potentially lethal threat, the death of the assailant is a highly likely result. But that's not necessarily the intended result. The intended result is that the attack is stopped. If the attack stops and the assailant survives, your legitimate purpose has been fulfilled.

Acerdog
April 29, 2012, 09:29 PM
A Utah man answered this a couple of day's ago.


http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=20161608&title=man-buys-knife-stabs-2-at-salt-lake-city-store-witness-subdues-attacker&s_cid=featured-1


Man buys knife, stabs 2 at Salt Lake City store
Andrew Wittenberg and Lindsay Maxfield | posted Apr 26th - 7:45pm
A man stabbed two people at the Smith's Marketplace in downtown Salt Lake City. A bystander with a concealed carry permit challenged the alleged attacker and subdued him until police arrived.

TexasJustice7
April 30, 2012, 07:45 AM
FrankEtin: Yes, a handgun is lethal force. But the outcome of the use of lethal force is not necessarily death. In the law, lethal force is viewed as force likely to cause death or great bodily injury.

Effectively stopping an assailant who has manifest the intent and ability to cause you death or great bodily injury will most likely require that you use a degree of force likely to cause death or great bodily injury. But that is not the same thing as intending to kill.

And a handgun is good enough for me for home defense. I for one, don't feel the need for a shotgun, or an AR 15, etc. Great for those who want them. I make an assumption apparently that some do not. Anyone breaking into my home I do intend to stop them, if I am inside. I would not be checking to see if they were on drugs, drunk or otherwise impaired. But I don't need to go find a bigger gun to shoot them with if they are down. I listen to police scanners at night and the last two nights there were intruders at two locations nearby.

shaunpain
May 3, 2012, 02:46 PM
It's really interesting to see the myriad of opinions on when to pull your gun (why this has focused on when to shoot is beyond me, as that was not the OP's query). I think the majority of the good people on this board share my sentiment that I have absolutely ZERO desire in my life to have to pull a gun, much less shoot someone. Talk about shooting to kill? When the Chinese invade our country, I'll shoot to kill. Until then, I only have interest in killing paper. You should only pull your gun as a last resort, and like many posters have also chimed in, you should only pull when you have to shoot.

My first resort would be to try and talk the guy down. I would also try to disarm IF POSSIBLE. I would try to get HIS gun, not pull mine. Remember, we can't hypothesize what kind of situation you will be in and what options you may have available to you. You just *know* when you're on the short end of the stick. Training will help you better assess your situation (or at least thinking about possible scenarios) when the chips are down, and you will have to sort through a variety of outcomes with a moment's notice.

In most cases, it's probably best to give them what they want. I'm not a rich man and I work hard for my money, so taking even a few hundred bucks out of my pocket is not something that would sit well with me. I'm not pulling a gun, but I'm not giving you my wallet either. I have been held up before and insisted that I had no money (I did) until he got really frustrated with me and walked away. People who rob here actually jump people (Chicago) and brick you in the back of the head. This requires one decoy, and one to flank. This has happened to many friends of mine. They don't need a gun for this, but they get your money every time.

Pianoguy
May 3, 2012, 03:27 PM
In Wisconsin, if you can show that you had a reasonable expectiation that you were in danger of losing your life or incurring grave bodily harm, you can justify drawing your weapon and using it if need be. Every case is a little different depending on the relative abilities of the attacker and the victim. But you can't draw to only protect your property - human life is valued more than someone's wallet - if there is no clear indication that the attacker was going to hurt you. Unfortunatley you can't just guess - you have to be able to point to a reason that you felt your life was in danger - somehow the person has to actually threaten in some manner that could be considered deadly force that can be met with deadily force. If you pull a gun and can't show that you were in danger, YOU are the one threatening deadliy force and can be considered to be performing the criminal act.

I carry two wallets, the bigger one with money and some junk stuff of no value, the smaller and less obvious with the credit cards, drivers license (CC license!), etc. I also carry some pepper spray that I can pull out easily if someone asks for the wallet. The gun stays put. if I did pull it out I would hope that the person would have enough sense to give it up and back off. I would not immediately shoot unless it was obvious that the person was in the act of attacking me and was not going to stop.

However reality is messy so who knows what would happen. Just don't go looking for trouble in the first place. Use your head and think before going places where hindsight would tell you that being there wasn't too bright.

TexasJustice7
May 5, 2012, 06:00 PM
PianoGuy: In Wisconsin, if you can show that you had a reasonable expectiation that you were in danger of losing your life or incurring grave bodily harm, you can justify drawing your weapon and using it if need be. Every case is a little different depending on the relative abilities of the attacker and the victim. But you can't draw to only protect your property

Hopefully this will not happen to me, as I am an old and disabled. You can use deadly force to protect property in Texas, and you do not have to engage in martial arts, or a fist fight to stop an unarmed robber. I might surrender a TV set, but my wallet contains my money, my debit cards, and my disabled daughter's Texas benefits card. I will draw in such a case and whether they want to take it anyway will determine the outcome. I will not live from now on with an identity theft problem if I can prevent it. If I were not willing to draw in such a case, then I would not even bother to have gotten a permit nor would I carry a gun. At my age, engaging in a physical confrontation is life theatening, and my assailant would probably take my guns & use them on someone else. We have no duty in Texas to surrender our wallet to an armed nor an unarmed assailant, nor to take a beating either.:)

Frank Ettin
May 5, 2012, 06:48 PM
...You can use deadly force to protect property in Texas,...[1] Sometimes, under some circumstances. Know exactly what the law says and find ways to conform your conduct to what the law permits.

[2] Everywhere is not Texas. Everyone is not in Texas. And even people who normally live in Texas might find themselves elsewhere with a need to defend themselves. Understand the law of wherever you might be at the time. Understand the lowest common denominator that applies everywhere -- the use of lethal force is justifiable when a reasonable and prudent person in like circumstances would conclude it's necessary to prevent otherwise unavoidable, immediate death or grave bodily injury to an innocent.

[3] Wherever you are and whatever the legal standards for justifying the use of lethal force in self defense, if you use lethal force and claim you were justified, you will need to be able to articulate why and how those standards were satisfied.

Nathan
May 6, 2012, 12:08 PM
To answer the OP's original question, you draw in preparation to shoot. Drawing to scare is a bad idea.

In response to the mugger question, when asked for my wallet, a stern no, is probably still legal in all 50. Any effort to take the wallet, would be another issue.

TexasJustice7
May 6, 2012, 08:02 PM
FrankEaton: 2] Everywhere is not Texas. Everyone is not in Texas. And even people who normally live in Texas might find themselves elsewhere with a need to defend themselves. Understand the law of wherever you might be at the time. Understand the lowest common denominator that applies everywhere -- the use of lethal force is justifiable when a reasonable and prudent person in like circumstances would conclude it's necessary to prevent otherwise unavoidable, immediate death or grave bodily injury to an innocent.

Very true, everywhere is not Texas. I travel to Oklahoma & Lousiana, on rare occasion Arkansas. Although the laws of those states are similar I am particularly careful in traveling to Lousiana, as there I travel to federal property. So there I just don't take a handgun. Had some other veterans
get angry with me because I stated that I never stop, not even to buy a coke in Lousiana. I buy my all my gas in Texas before I leave, all the food I will need before leaving Texas which increases the chance that I will not be a victim by not getting out of my vehicle, till; I arrive at my destination.

Hope to never see Texas & the USA separate, because I am not sure I would leave Texas. I do try to read up on the laws in Arkansas & Oklahoma on the very rare occasion I travel there just across the Texas line. I am always
relieved when I come back across the Texas state line. :D

totaldla
May 6, 2012, 09:54 PM
...Every state considers employing a handgun to be lethal force and the outcome of such force is death....
Yes, a handgun is lethal force. But the outcome of the use of lethal force is not necessarily death. In the law, lethal force is viewed as force likely to cause death or great bodily injury.
Are you saying that you are holding out hope that your use of lethal force will not result in death? If so, then why are you using lethal force in the first place? Better think that through.

Effectively stopping an assailant who has manifest the intent and ability to cause you death or great bodily injury will most likely require that you use a degree of force likely to cause death or great bodily injury. But that is not the same thing as intending to kill. Seriously? You shoot at a BG and want to tell me with a straight face that you meant for him to live long and prosper? :)


...From a criminal law perspective, you have demonstrated intent to kill when you employed a firearm...
Provide some citation to proper legal authority for that contention. It is, in fact, not true.
Lets think for a moment, suppose I pointed a banana at you and said "Give me all your hope and change!" - pretty difficult to determine my intentions right? Lets replace the banana with a gun. Now what do you think about my intentions? Suddenly it becomes more clear - why? Because pointing a firearm at you, (a device designed and employed to kill), has signaled what a reasonable person would interpret as my intention to kill.

Point a banana at a Cop and you'll get checked out. Point a firearm at a Cop and you'll get your own body bag. That's my "citation to proper legal authority" for today.


Quote:
Originally Posted by totaldla


...I'm harping on this because "shoot to stop", a PC phrase, can mislead folks in a bad way...
Not true. All established trainers and school talk in terms of shooting to stop.

Yep and everybody gravitates towards the biggest caliber, the nastiest hollowpoints and trains for a magazine full of center of mass hits because they want the bad guy to just "stop". Yep. Uh-huh. Sure. You-betcha :)


...You cant draw a weapon and have all these "Less than lethal" ideas running through your head...
You have completely failed to understand the point. No one has suggested any "less than lethal" ideas. If one effectively employs a gun to stop a potentially lethal threat, the death of the assailant is a highly likely result. But that's not necessarily the intended result. The intended result is that the attack is stopped. If the attack stops and the assailant survives, your legitimate purpose has been fulfilled.

Frank, I believe Michael4yah is exactly right. Using a lethal weapon is serious business and if folks don't want to belly up to the bar and be clear about what they are doing, ... well then I don't think folks should be carrying weapons - there are non-lethal options.

MLeake
May 6, 2012, 10:25 PM
totaldla, you seem to be deliberately missing the point: a stated goal of shooting to stop is very different, in the eyes of the law, than a stated goal of shooting to kill.

It goes to intent and mens rea. If you don't understand the concept, please look up those terms.

As far as your contention that people who train to shoot to stop, and who state a goal of shooting to stop, are in some kind of denial about deadly force - you might want to check gunshot wound survival stats. They may be higher than you think.

If I were to have to employ deadly force, I accept that it might have fatal effect. If so, that would be an unfortunate necessity. OTOH, should I employ deadly force, and stop the assailant without killing him, that would be fine with me. The death of the BG in such a scenario would have been an acceptable risk, but not the goal.

It's a matter of desired end state.

Your arguments are going to paint you in a very negative light, should you ever draw and fire in self defense.

Frank Ettin
May 6, 2012, 10:26 PM
Are you saying that you are holding out hope that your use of lethal force will not result in death? If so, then why are you using lethal force in the first place? Better think that through....If the use of lethal force is going to be legally justified, the defender is at reasonable risk of death or grave bodily injury if the attacker is not stopped promptly. That will require significant force.

There are four ways in which shooting an assailant stops a fight:

psychological -- "I'm shot, it hurts, I don't want to get shot any more."


massive blood loss depriving the muscles and brain of oxygen and thus significantly impairing their ability to function


breaking major skeletal support structures


damaging the central nervous system.

Depending on someone just giving up because he's been shot is iffy. Probably most fights are stopped that way, but some aren't.

Breaking major skeletal structures can quickly impair mobility, but someone with a gun can still shoot.

Hits to the central nervous system are sure and quick, but the CNS presents a small and uncertain target.

The most common and sure physiological way in which shooting someone stops him is blood loss -- depriving the brain and muscles of oxygen and nutrients, thus impairing the ability of the brain and muscles to function. Blood loss is facilitated by (1) large holes causing tissue damage; (2) getting the holes in the right places to damage major blood vessels or blood bearing organs; and (3) adequate penetration to get those holes into the blood vessels and organs which are fairly deep in the body. The problem is that blood loss takes time. People have continued to fight effectively when gravely, even mortally, wounded. So things that can speed up blood loss, more holes, bigger holes, better placed holes, etc., help.

Stopping the assailant might result in his death. But the goal is not to kill him. The goal is to stop him.

...Seriously? You shoot at a BG and want to tell me with a straight face that you meant for him to live long and prosper?.. What I mean for him to do, and want him to do, is stop.

...From a criminal law perspective, you have demonstrated intent to kill when you employed a firearm...Provide some citation to proper legal authority for that contention. It is, in fact, not true....Lets think for a moment, suppose I pointed a banana at you and said "Give me all your hope and change!" - pretty difficult to determine my intentions right? Lets replace the banana with a gun. Now what do you think about my intentions? Suddenly it becomes more clear - why? Because pointing a firearm at you, (a device designed and employed to kill), has signaled what a reasonable person would interpret as my intention to kill.

Point a banana at a Cop and you'll get checked out. Point a firearm at a Cop and you'll get your own body bag. That's my "citation to proper legal authority" for today....In other words you just made up that business about intent under the law and you have no idea what you are talking about.

...I'm harping on this because "shoot to stop", a PC phrase, can mislead folks in a bad way...Not true. All established trainers and school talk in terms of shooting to stop.Yep and everybody gravitates towards the biggest caliber, the nastiest hollowpoints and trains for a magazine full of center of mass hits because they want the bad guy to just "stop". Yep. Uh-huh. Sure. You-betcha[1] So obviously you have no training since you're unfamiliar with what is taught.

[2] As for biggest caliber and hollow points, see my discussion of wound physiology, above.

...Using a lethal weapon is serious business and if folks don't want to belly up to the bar and be clear about what they are doing, ... Yes, it is serious business. And for you to suggest that those of us who understand the legal and ethical issues, and shoot to stop rather than to kill, don't take it serious, is an insult that is inappropriate for this forum.

And your chest thumping flippancy suggests to me that you really don't fully appreciate how serious this all is.