The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 14, 2011, 12:23 AM   #76
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Eagle Eye...

... you said yourself, in many jurisdictions, it's a threat to oneself OR OTHERS.

If the guy turns his back on me, but is still threatening the clerk, then it's quite possible that a shooting would be legally justified.

Whether it would be tactically sound is another matter entirely.

And one had better be extremely sure one understands the situation before defending a stranger; sometimes, the apparent BG is a plainclothes cop making an arrest, for instance.

But plainclothes cops don't typically hold up convenience stores.
MLeake is offline  
Old April 14, 2011, 06:06 AM   #77
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 1,908
Quote:
Posted by Eagle Eye: You can't use your gun unless he goes first,
"Goes first?" Where did yoe get that idea? Study this.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old April 14, 2011, 07:14 AM   #78
Eagle Eye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 10, 2011
Location: Kansas
Posts: 178
Leake & OldMarksman --

Read the other posts. I think my comments will make more sense. Please don't take them out of the context of many posts before mine. I don't have the time to pull a dozen quotes out specifically. Go read them.
Eagle Eye is offline  
Old April 14, 2011, 07:58 AM   #79
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 1,908
Quote:
Posted by Eagle Eye: Read the other posts. I think my comments will make more sense.
I have, and I'm afraid they do not.

Perhaps, and I'm guessing here, you are mixing three questions: (1) What to do in the clerk-at-gunpoint-scenario; (2) whether one would likely survive if one were to draw on someone already holding a gun; (3) when one is justified in shooting in self defense.

If so, perhaps, when you say "You can't use your gun unless he goes first", which is nonsensical, you are trying to paraphrase advice that a civilianshould not intervene in the clerk scenario unless things have gone beyond the point of no return.

Or not. Your statement "if he does not produce a gun, you can't produce yours" makes no sense at all.

If someone poses an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm, and if you have not other means of avoiding the threat, you do not have to wait until "he goes first".

Quote:
I don't have the time to pull a dozen quotes out specifically.
Fine. Don't worry about the quotes. However, I do strongly suggest that you take the time to study the entire paper to which I provided a link.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old April 14, 2011, 10:10 AM   #80
Eagle Eye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 10, 2011
Location: Kansas
Posts: 178
I am really poking fun at those who made these sorts of statements throughout the thread. I am trying to show that the conflicting comments make no sense. It is others who have made those statements in words that I have paraphrased and shortened. These are not my comments and thoughts. I am saying that if all these sorts of statements made by others were true, that they are so conflicting that one may as not carry.

This has obviously been lost on you and perhaps on others, so I give up. I do carry.

I will not continue to engage in a battle of wits with those who are obviously unarmed. I have therefore retreated.

Lighten up.
Eagle Eye is offline  
Old April 14, 2011, 10:14 AM   #81
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Your sarcasm was too well masked, Eagle Eye. Thought you were being sarcastic at first, but then in your example of the clerk turning his back, you left out reference to third parties entirely.

Problem there is, if the guy were retreating and there were no third party, you'd have potential legal problems with a shoot.

So, it suddenly became muddy as to which of your points were sarcastic and which were serious.
MLeake is offline  
Old April 14, 2011, 11:03 AM   #82
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 1,908
Quote:
Posted by Eagle Eye: I am trying to show that the conflicting comments make no sense. It is others who have made those statements in words that I have paraphrased and shortened. These are not my comments and thoughts.
So, here are the words, "paraphrased and shortened":
Quote:
(1): You cannot use lethal force unless you justifiably fear for your life or that of others.
That's a pretty good generalization, though there are exceptions.

I do not see anything remotely similar to that in the thread, however.

Quote:
(2): So as one suggested (I paraphrase): All hell breaks loose if he turns his back on me... Really? Shoot him in the back? The threat to your life will be hard to justify after he turns his back.
In the OP scenario, it is not the threat to "your" life that would make the use of deadly force justifiable, and shooting the perp in the back would be lawful if shooting him in the front or the side would be lawful.

Quote:
(3): And another says you don't have a chance of shooting him if he even has his hand on his gun (paraphrased again, so don't nitpick me).
Massad Ayoob did demonstrate that, and it is true for most people. You can try it yourself with Airsoft guns. Think about it: is it likely that one can draw, present, and pull the trigger more quickly than another can detect movement and pull the trigger? Even if so, is it at all likely that one's shot would prevent the other from firing?

Quote:
(4): So if he produces a gun you do not have a chance, so just comply with his wishes and hope he does not shoot (one writer suggests he will only shoot 25% of the time). Don't even try in this case, since he will always outgun you.
It's a personal judgment--one weighs the risks (very high liklihood of being shot if one draws vs. lower likelihood of being shot if one does not draw) and makes on'e own decision. I would comply rather than force him to shoot.

Quote:
(5): And if he does not produce a gun, you can't produce yours?
Where did that come from? I did not see that in the thread.

Quote:
I remain confused.
That is demonstrated by this:

Quote:
I am saying that if all these sorts of statements made by others were true, that they are so conflicting that one may as not carry.
If one eliminates (5), which is entirely incorrect, there is no contradiction among the other four statements.

The first one simply says that one must be justified to use deadly force justified; no reason for not carrying--just the law. Much of the gist of the thread had to do with whether it would be prudent for a civilian to intervene in a store robbery by shooting at the robber; one does not carry to shoot people who rob stores. Finally, the fact that it would probably be foolhardy to try to draw and shoot should one have a gun pointed at him point blank ((3) and (4)) does not indicate against carrying in any way. It simply highlights the need for situational awareness and for avoiding such situations.

Where are the supposed contradictions?
OldMarksman is offline  
Old April 14, 2011, 02:26 PM   #83
markj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 27, 2005
Location: Crescent Iowa
Posts: 2,965
Quote:
Really? Shoot him in the back
I would jump on him not shoot him. We used to handle it with our hands. Most time I dont even carry a gun. Never go into a bad area, stay out of dark alleys, basically use my head and have been very safe so far.

These what if threads are fun only, I would never expect anyone posts here to do as they say they will do. I seen a guy freeze up 100% when fired upon, I dove under the truck.

Think I will go hunting,

Last edited by markj; April 14, 2011 at 03:29 PM.
markj is offline  
Old April 14, 2011, 02:57 PM   #84
jibberjabber
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 9, 2011
Posts: 177
I wouldn't fire the first shot. The BG might just leave if he gets what he wants. But if the BG started shooting at people, I'd try to intervene. One thing though, I wouldn't want to shoot any innocent people, so I'd need to shoot from a distance where I was confident of not missing. So really, really close then.
jibberjabber is offline  
Old April 14, 2011, 03:15 PM   #85
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 1,908
Quote:
Posted by jibberjabber: I wouldn't fire the first shot. The BG might just leave if he gets what he wants. But if the BG started shooting at people, I'd try to intervene. One thing though, I wouldn't want to shoot any innocent people, so I'd need to shoot from a distance where I was confident of not missing. So really, really close then.
You might want to consider one other thing: if one or more perps start ordering everyone into a back room, there's a pretty high likelihood that step two will be to get everyone onto the floor, and that step three will be to start killing people.

At some point in that sequence you will lose your ability to act.

You may be well advised to seize the opportunity while you can, if it is pretty clear that the situation is really going downhill.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old April 14, 2011, 04:11 PM   #86
threegun
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 1, 2006
Location: Tampa,Fl
Posts: 4,000
Once the bad guys attention is turned on me or if the bad guy starts shooting, its on.
threegun is offline  
Old April 14, 2011, 04:34 PM   #87
Alaska444
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
In my CCW class, the instructor posed the question, what would you do if you came out of a bathroom at a convenience store and saw the clerk held at gun point. His answer, go back inside the bathroom and lock the door.

He then went into a discourse about automatic reflexes and how just the startle reaction in someone with his finger on the trigger could get the clerk killed. To put a person down with a gun to someone else's head, you have to hit the midbrain. Otherwise, simply shooting someone could get the person killed on the other end of his gun. In this situation, you might end up the owner of a nice lawsuit by the victim's family.

His advice, conceal in good cover and take up a defense posture, armed and ready, but don't intervene UNLESS the perp is shooting already. Having a permit to a gun does not mean that we are LEO's in any sense of the word. Fortunately, most robberies do not involve murder. No way to tell the difference upfront, so taking a conservative role is the safest for all involved in most situations from all that I have heard. The examples previously of LEO's who likewise don't intervene when off duty is a really telling post.
Alaska444 is offline  
Old April 14, 2011, 11:04 PM   #88
jibberjabber
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 9, 2011
Posts: 177
Quote:
You might want to consider one other thing: if one or more perps start ordering everyone into a back room, there's a pretty high likelihood that step two will be to get everyone onto the floor, and that step three will be to start killing people.

At some point in that sequence you will lose your ability to act.

You may be well advised to seize the opportunity while you can, if it is pretty clear that the situation is really going downhill.

Yes, true. Hesitation can be deadly. The trick is in identifying that moment.
jibberjabber is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.09494 seconds with 9 queries