Question about carrying

[Trutech74]

Ok as some of you know I'm new here and this is something I've been thinking about for the past couple of days. If you are carrying your gun and you get into a situation where someone is definitely threatening your safety. If they appear to be unarmed and say you draw your gun to scare them away with possibly no intentions to actually shoot since they appear unarmed. Now say after that this person draws a gun on you also. What would the rules be for when you can fire upon them? Do you have to wait to see if they are going to shoot at you for real or do you have to assess to first make sure its a real gun. Or if they draw a gun is it fair game to just take the offensive and shoot first? I don't plan to carry anytime soon but I was just curious about this particular situation.

[flcaptainbill]

Do not draw unless you are planning on Killing them!

[Hard Ball]

Do not draw unless you are willing and ready to shoot.

[Night Watch]

The first two respondents, Hard Ball and flcaptainbill, told you right. Do NOT draw unless you intend to fire. The usual legal justification for drawing and firing is an immediate fear of imminent loss-of-life or serious bodily harm to either yourself or another.

Other than that, exactly how much time do you expect to have in order to correctly ascertain the situation? 'Is he armed?' 'Isn't he armed?' 'Should I shoot?' 'Should I wait?' are all non-sequitors. By the time you figure it out, you’ll probably be dead!

You're talking about CQB gunfighting; it's going to start and finish in less than 1/2 second. After an initial moment of, 'introduction' there is no reaction time in a close quarter gun battle. The most likely winner is going to be the individual who shoots first.

So that we're clear: 'threatening your safety' isn't a good enough reason for you to brandish a handgun - OK!

[BillCA]

This says it all...

If they appear to be unarmed and say you draw your gun to scare them away with possibly no intentions to actually shoot since they appear unarmed.

If you have no intention to shoot (or you don't think you have the legal and/or moral justification to shoot), keep the gun in its holster!

Here's a fair "for instance" for you.
I stopped at a local grocery chain on the way home from the doctor's office with a bad case of bronchitis. Unfortunately, union workers were striking at that time too. Feeling lousy, feverish and weak, all I wanted was to get my drugs, some chicken soup and go home to sleep. A union member tried to hand me a flier on my way in and I declined it, waving a hand and shaking my head.

When I exited the store and approached my car, one of the union workers challenged me. I'm only 5'8" and he was around 6'3" and looked pretty strong. He got within 6 feet and was yelling at me things like "what's your f'ing damage?"; "Are you an anti-union a-hole?" and finally what appeared (to me) to be a threat, "Do you know what we do to f'ing scabs* like you?"

Now, if you were armed, would you feel your life was in actual danger?

I was worried, certainly, as I was in no condition to grapple with my grandmother, much less this guy. But I was not then in fear for my life. Had he shoved me down (which would have been easy at that point) I would NOT have felt justified in drawing. However, if he approached me, while down, in a rude, angry or threatening manner, it could get really ugly.


*Scab - a derogatory term for a non-union replacement worker or one who crosses union picket lines. Scabs are often assaulted by union agitators during strikes. Historically some have been only roughed up while others beaten severely.

[Trutech74]

So basically its a keep it away until you think you might die type of situation?

[Playboypenguin]

So basically its a keep it away until you think you might die type of situation?

Pretty much...never pull your gun unless you are both willing to pull the trigger and have reason to believe you would have just cause in doing so. That being said, do not fall into tthe old trap of the "if you pull it, shoot it" mentality. That is one the dumbest things in the world. If you pull it and the bad guy with a machette stops in his tracks and turns tail and runs put the gun away and call the police.

[Tanzer]

.

If they appear to be unarmed and say you draw your gun to scare them away with possibly no intentions to actually shoot since they appear unarmed.

You're really taking a backwards approach here, and a somewhat ambiguous one at that. They are

definitely threatening your safety

, yet they are unarmed. Not to brag, but they'd better be a pretty big and ugly Hombre to meet that criteria with me.
Now, if I introduce a weapon into the scenario, I've narrowed my options. I can now rely totally on this firearm until the threat is over, or I can wind up defending said firearm against being taken from me. If he's the big ugly guy mentioned above, I'm in trouble that I brought on.

[rampage841512]

I wouldn't draw unless I planned to shot. Action in this sort of situation can only be judged on a case by case basis. If you point a gun at someone, and they point one at you in return it sounds a lot like the one responding to your action is the one acting defensively, especially if you thought they were unarmed (I'm assuming two people of about the same physical capability). I need more details. Would this person have threatened you with physical harm? Articulated a threat to shoot you or use some other sort of weapon? What is it they would be doing that might make you feel it necessary to draw on an unarmed person? Not saying you should or shouldn't, just looking for your reasoning either way.

The best general advice I can give for this sort of situation is to get away. I'm not saying run. If your in a place you've got a right to be there should be no reason to run. But walk away, keeping an eye on the person you feel threated by. Call the police if you feel that threatened and have the opportunity (you might not have it). If they try to stop you, then I might consider drawing the gun. Then again I might introduce face to elbow, or knee to groin, or eyes to pepper spray.

[tepin]

Pointing your gun at someone is an act of deadly force.

Never use deadly force against another unless you are in fear of immediate death or great bodily harm, you are innocent, you are a reluctant participant in the altercation, no opportunity to retreat or avoid the use of deadly force exists and your use of deadly force will not put innocent bystanders in jeopardy.

Even in states with stand-your-gound, take a conservative approach and run away if possible.

According to the National Rifle Association, more than 2 million assaults are prevented each year by making a potential attacker aware that the would-be victim is carrying a firearm.

If you believe a threat will soon turn into physical violence, you may take the following actions to preempt an attack (least aggressive to most aggressive):

1. Expose your firearm but leave the gun in the holster, keeping your hand on the guns grip so the gun can be quickly pulled and put into action
2. Pull your gun from its holster and keep the gun at your side or at a low ready position (pointed toward the ground at approximately a 45 degree angle)
3. Pull your gun from its holster and point your gun at the attacker (see notes below)

Anytime a firearm is used defensively, regardless of whether or not a shot is fired, it is important to notify the police as soon as it is safe to do so. The reason for this is the fact that the would-be criminal might decide to call 911 to report that someone (you) just pulled a gun on him. Generally, the first person to call 911 is the victim.

Keep in mind that pulling your firearm out of its holster and pointing your firearm at someone is an act of deadly force. If you point your gun at someone and you are not able to articulate your legal justification for doing so, you run the risk of criminal prosecution for second degree assault which can be up to 7 years in prison (in Minnesota). In theory, it would be fair to say that to be justified in pointing your firearm at someone, the situation would have to be so grave that you would also be justified in shooting the attacker but at the last moment, the attack was prevented upon the presentation of your firearm without the need to fire.

Never, under any circumstance, fire warning shots, either into the air or into the ground. Firing a warning shot is dangerous and primarily a product of television and Hollywood. Many police departments have policies against this type of action. Innocent people have been killed by firing warning shots and you are responsible for the bullets that leave your barrel.

Unarmed attacker
You better be able to articulate the attackers ABILITY to kill or cause great bodily harm if you intend to employ the use of deadly force. When weapons do not exist, then there must be a disparity of force between you and the attacker.
Elements that create a disparity of force include, but are not limited to:

1. Size and or strength of the attacker
2. Female attacked by a male
3. Force of numbers (3+ to 1)
4. Skill or training of the attacker
5. Medical condition of the victim
6. The victim becomes disabled during an attack

A great deal of common sense must be used when assessing a threat. For example, if a 5 year old boy runs at you with a kitchen knife, you may in fact suffer some cuts and scrapes but it will most likely be difficult convincing a jury that the 5 year old had the strength to wield a knife in a manner that truly represented a valid threat of death or great bodily harm.

In a one-on-one altercation between two males, the attacker being unarmed, there is going to need to be a significant size and strength difference before the victim would be justified in reaching for a weapon. An example might be an 80 year old violently attacked by a 25 year old or possibly a 5’ 4” 125lb male attacked by a 6’ 7” 300lb male.

There is a cultural predisposition that males are generally larger and stronger than females and therefore disparity of force will most often exist. It is important to note that a female can use deadly force to defend against rape.

Generally speaking, when attacked by three or more assailants, disparity of force clearly exists. With two against one, it most likely will come down to a judgment call as to whether or not the two attackers represent enough of an overwhelming force to justify the use of deadly force for self-defense. It is important to note that should you disable one of two attackers or two of three attackers, your use of deadly force must generally stop because now disparity of force (force in numbers) no longer exists.

If you are attacked by someone with superior fighting skills, disparity of force can exist. The challenge is you must know your attacker possesses these skills at the time of the attack. Fighting skills in the destructive arts typically include a black belt in a martial art, professionally trained boxer or specialized training in the military where the individual is taught to kill fighting hand-to-hand.

In some cases if the victim has a medical condition or is taking certain types of medication such as blood thinners, disparity of force may exist even between two males evenly matched in size and strength. Conceivably, someone on blood thinners would be at risk of death even if only moderately / mildly attacked.

Lastly, if you find yourself in an altercation fighting hand-to-hand where size and skill are all equally matched, should you (the victim) become disabled during the attack, disparity of force may now exist and justify the use of deadly force. An example would be to receive a kick to the knee, falling to the ground and be unable to get up. Being unable to roll with the attackers crushing kicks and punches, these crushing blows with the shod foot or fist could in fact be life threatening.

[Hayley]

"If you are carrying your gun and you get into a situation where someone is definitely threatening your safety. If they..."

Much depends on how you got into the situation and what "their" intention is, among other things. One can run endless variables through the "if this, then that" formula in search of answers and find more questions remain. Working-out scenarios like this cannot prepare you for some real-life situation. Others have offered good advise. Have faith in your intelligence, common sense and responsible carry practices.

[OJ]

Hard to say anything now that hasn't been well said - Jeff Cooper used to say if you (or another) are threatened enough for you to use leathal force for defense, you potentally have 2 problems.

#1. Save your (or other's) life.

#2. Potential legal problems resulting from your actions.

Priorities are obvious - if you don't solve #1 quickly enough, you won't have to worry about #2. There is a lot more time to consider solving #2 than is available to ponder about solving #1 !!!

I'm not sure but I think I read once that more people are killed with such things as hammers or bats than with guns/knives - I don't think the attacker needs to be "armed" to be a potentially lethal threat. If I were threatened, I wouldn't waste much time considering what they were using to threaten me!

[Trutech74]

I guess i do leave too many details out. I guess more so im just wondering what types of situations you would justify having to use your weapon. Myself I am a fairly small guy being my fully grown self at 130 lbs and 5'8" ish. I'm honestly not too confident in defending myself against many people that would be larger in size. This is some good info to read though for everyone that posted. I think this Is one reason why I don't know if I'll ever carry because I will either not use it when i should or the possibility of doing something wrong. With people being all sue happy and with all the laws around the issue sometimes it scares me lol.

[Tanzer]

I'm not sure but I think I read once that more people are killed with such things as hammers or bats than with guns/knives - I don't think the attacker needs to be "armed" to be a potentially lethal threat. If I were threatened, I wouldn't waste much time considering what they were using to threaten me!

But OJ.... Now they are armed.

[OJ]

I guess i do leave too many details out. I guess more so im just wondering what types of situations you would justify having to use your weapon. Myself I am a fairly small guy being my fully grown self at 130 lbs and 5'8" ish. I'm honestly not too confident in defending myself against many people that would be larger in size. This is some good info to read though for everyone that posted. I think this Is one reason why I don't know if I'll ever carry because I will either not use it when i should or the possibility of doing something wrong. With people being all sue happy and with all the laws around the issue sometimes it scares me lol.

That's a decision that must be made in advance - not on the spot. My wife decided she could use a gun in personal defense (not carry - use at home) after she met the kind and sweet little old lady who shot a known serial raper breaking in her back door - didn't kill him but he bled out enough that he passed out driving away and was caught by cops as a result and prosecuted.

Little old lady was subsequently named 'Citizen of the Year" in Colorado Springs - so there are other outcomes than being sued.

Opinions differ but, I think priorities are misplaced if one worries more about being sued than being maimed or killed - just my opinion (and an unfortunate and sad commentary on what's happened to our culture).

YMMV

[OJ]

But OJ.... Now they are armed.

Yep - however, some martial arts experts have been known to "register" their hands as lethal weapons - mostly advertising hype but can be true.

For me - any threat at all is 100% threat and any one committing that threat is doing so knowingly and deserves appropriate consequences for those actions.

Personal defense ("life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.....") is endowed by the creator and protected by the constitution.

[Tanzer]

Well, OJ,
You bring up a point. I can only use visual cues to determine armed/unarmed. not seeing a weapon does not mean there is no weapon. He is, after all, willing to threaten you. The op, however, is still far too vague to appropriate a lethal response.

[Night Watch]

Want to bring this discussion into the real world? Google: 'Harold Fish' or, 'Grant Kuenzli'. This event makes for a great case study - especially in light of some of the remarks already posted.

After considering the Kuenzli/Fish case, I'd suggest reading Mas Ayoob's book, 'In the Gravest Extreme'. Then there are the NRA's two books, 'Personal Protection Outside The Home' and, 'Personal Protection Inside The Home'.

Perhaps this intellectual material will help clear away some of, 'the cobwebs'. Then, again, there's always Fox Labs pepper spray; it can often (but not always) be used as a viable alternative to a handgun.

[gvf]

One thing I keep in mind: as problematic as they may seem abstractly, the chances of any potential lethal encounter are very slim to begin with , and I believe, out of those, when a CCW pulls their gun the BG flees 80% of the time. That leaves a very, very, very slim chance you will both have to shoot AND make a mistake. On top of that, I think most SD shootings, when they do happen, are "clean", there are not mistakes, (although I don't have stats for that).

In other words, this will likely always stay an abstract problem. To balance the small potential negative that it won't, is the much greater chance you will have more ease of mind when around dangerous environments, and if something does happen you will likely escape, either because the instigator fled, or is shot - and shot justifiably. On that basis, I chose to carry, in the specific circumstances when I am increased danger: for me, that is on foot, alone, at night.

And the rest: I tell myself: "Act in any encounter exactly the same as you would have before you had a CCW, unless it is overwhemingly clear you are going to be killed/seriously injured NOW. Then, save your life with what's available". (And I go to the range a lot.). What else can you do in life? Ultimately, you take your chances with anything you choose, driving, running (heart-attack), swimming, flying in an airplane.... If the reward outweighs the risk, take your shots and hope for the best from the fates.

If you try ccw, and it's a source of continual fear over what could happen, then fine, it's not for you. For me, I feel easier than I used to, so it works. Keep it simple.

[OJ]

Well, yes. I shoot every week at the range and put at least 100 miles (one ride) per week on my motorcycle.

I regard concealed carry to be in the same category as wearing my seat belt while driving and wearing my helmet while riding my motorcycle. I wouldn't go out of my driveway without them (whichever vehicle I'm using) and, over many years (nearly 70 on motorcycles and a little longer in cars - still put a little over 5K annually on each), those safety devices were only needed once - each. However, when they were needed - they were REALLY needed and nothing else would have saved my life as they did.

I've carried concealed more years than I can legally admit to (and legally for over 12 years) - but for good reason - and have yet to have that moment of REAL NEED happen - but I'm ready if/when it might happen.

YMMV

[JohnKSa]

Some states allow you to use your firearm to create the apprehension that you may use deadly force. In TX, you may do so, but the situation must be serious enough that it warrants the use of FORCE (but not deadly force) in self-defense.

You don't want to present a gun unless you're justifed in using at least force (if not deadly force) in self-defense. There's a real danger that your actions could be used as a justification for someone else's using self-defense against YOU if you "jump the gun". (Sorry)

[Sigma 40 Blaster]

JohnKSA,

I live in TX, have read the laws pertaining to conceal carry several times but did not see anything like that (create apprehension = use of force but not deadly force).

Do you know of a resource that has the laws of TX spelled out for us readers who are law-comprehensive-challenged? I have looked up stuff like Texas CHL for Dummies and similar things but can't find anything I trust.

[JohnKSa]

I usually just go here. The TX CHL forum isn't a bad resource, but like any other forum there can be a good deal of bickering about the specific interpretation of laws.

Here's the section I was referring to. It's in the penal code.

§ 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

My take on this (as a NON-Lawyer) is that if force is justified that you can draw/show your weapon but probably shouldn't point it.

The main issue is that you have to be careful about getting into a situation where your actions could be viewed as sufficient justification for self-defense on the part of the other person.

[rb4browns]

Junior Member

\ I guess i do leave too many details out. I guess more so im just wondering what types of situations you would justify having to use your weapon. Myself I am a fairly small guy being my fully grown self at 130 lbs and 5'8" ish. I'm honestly not too confident in defending myself against many people that would be larger in size. This is some good info to read though for everyone that posted. I think this Is one reason why I don't know if I'll ever carry because I will either not use it when i should or the possibility of doing something wrong. With people being all sue happy and with all the laws around the issue sometimes it scares me lol.

As another poster pointed out, you have to make this decision before you carry. I myself am 5'6 155lbs. My first defense is situational awareness and carrying myself when I am out in such a way that my body language reads that I am aware of my surroundings and am not afraid. I back it up with pepper spray if a non-life threatening physical altercation is imminent, and my .38 if I do find myself in a life threatening situation.

I firmly believe that most altercations are avoidable, and a weapon is only for situations where there are no other choices. I respect your self honesty. Carrying a gun when you are not trained to use it properly and more importantly not mentally prepared to use it when needed (or to know when not to pull it) can get you killed.

Your best defense though is situational awareness and avoiding situations that can leave you vulernable. Always be aware of your surroundings. Always know who is around you and learn how to read body language. I personally try to avoid being out at night. My wife and I do our grocery shopping, gas fill ups, Wally World runs, etc. only during the day. We never use ATM's (I get cash back at the grocery store). I never go to convenience-marts.

Again, the goal is to try and keep out of dangerous situations before they ever have a chance to happen. This is IMHO the best defense any of us have, and one all of us can/should practice regardless if we carry or don't carry a weapon.

[rb4browns]

I usually just go here. The TX CHL forum isn't a bad resource, but like any other forum there can be a good deal of bickering about the specific interpretation of laws.

Here's the section I was referring to. It's in the penal code.

§ 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.
My take on this (as a NON-Lawyer) is that if force is justified that you can draw/show your weapon but probably shouldn't point it.

The main issue is that you have to be careful about getting into a situation where your actions could be viewed as sufficient justification for self-defense on the part of the other person.

Excellent point. An altercation with another person is an organic and unpredictable situation. While brandishing may be justified and effective, it can also lead to a direct escalation.