Multiple Assailants

[Steviewonder1]

Shoot the first one with a gun nearest to you. If the other keep coming, shoot the loudest or closest. In Georgia I do not have to retreat in public and not in my house. After the first shots are fired, you will see some scattering of folks. If they arrived in a car, disable it, cut tires or shoot tires. Get on your cell phone and start dialing 911 and hope you do not get put on hold like some folks in Atlanta, Ga do. Get off the X first and go to Defensive mode. Get training for these issues, there are lots of schools that can train you on how to survive. These issues are only going to get worse as the economy fails and the BG's come out of the shadows.

[jon_in_wv]

I've already made the personal decision that one will ever take any of my possessions without me putting up a fight so that's a moot point

The fact that you brought this up means that at least on some level you see the folly of it. You carry a weapon only to defend yourself and those you love. You can't defend your possessions with lethal force. There is no possession in my home that I would kill or be killed for.

One day I ran into a country boy at the local gun shop. He was proud to drag out his Ruger P89 and show it to everybody (even though no one had asked him to) and he told me that he carries two spare 15 round mags with it. He said one day he stopped to help out a motorist. When he was walking over to the persons car 8-9 other guys walked out of the woods towards them. He drew his weapon and retreated to his car. Now he says he never leaves home with less than 45 rounds. I wonder how he thinks that would play out? I honestly can't imagine that after I've shot the first couple guys that the last few are really going to want to start some shenanigans. I do carry an extra mag and a spare 17 round mag in my console but its not so I can repel a group. I would prefer my AK for that.

[Tucker 1371]

I would prefer my AK for that.

+1

I have, however, always visualized it as being a Me vs Two scenario. It just seems to be the most likely. Speed, awareness, and precision are paramount. That 2nd one isn't something you can actually drill, it's just got to be there. I'll be investing heavily in classes when I get my permit (October, I have over 10 months to wait )

[Xanatos]

The fact that you brought this up means that at least on some level you see the folly of it. You carry a weapon only to defend yourself and those you love. You can't defend your possessions with lethal force. There is no possession in my home that I would kill or be killed for.

In my state I have no duty to retreat. If anyone wants anything I worked my *** off to afford they'll have to do so with enough force to warrant me protecting what I earned with lethal force.

[jon_in_wv]

I wasn't talking about state law. I was talking about common sense. Are you honestly going to shoot someone who is trying to steal your lawnmower (for example)? I pray you never find out the price you'll pay for that decision. I would GIVE him the lawnmower if its that desperate. I can get another. But ending another human life over a trifle possession, thats permanent. I wouldn't hesitate to use whatever force necessary to protect life or limb but a possession? Not likely.

1 Timothy 6:10

[Daugherty16]

I wasn't talking about state law. I was talking about common sense. Are you honestly going to shoot someone who is trying to steal your lawnmower (for example)? I pray you never find out the price you'll pay for that decision. I would GIVE him the lawnmower if its that desperate. I can get another. But ending another human life over a trifle possession, thats permanent. I wouldn't hesitate to use whatever force necessary to protect life or limb but a possession? Not likely.

+10 for Jon

To the OP: your comments sound like you're primed and ready to be quick on the trigger. While that could save your life someday, I think some FOF training, some LF1, etc., or even trolling around some old topical threads here would be a very wise investment. At the very least, as Marksman implied, you ought to refrain from expressing that "shoot first, ask questions later" viewpoint, in writing or verbally. Stuff like that could be used by a DA to hang you and could well be the little detail that swings a jury against you, if it ever came to it.

As for the scenario, it's way too general to contemplate seriously, imho. I've always found that real-life self-defense situations (not mine, from the news) make the best post-game review. And usually even then, we end up making assumptions because we never have enough information about the actual incident. Of course, that's how this would play out in the streets, albeit much, much more quickly. Shoot/No Shoot decisions have to be made in an instant. So anyhow, when you sit back and visualize your scenarios, (which we all do!) i'd suggest flavoring it with as much detail - specific detail - as you can, then think it through. Focus on how you can identify the actual threat(s) and deal with it, while not shooting unarmed homeys along for the ride.

Disparity of force someone mentioned. But i thought you put the other dudes some distance away and not necessarily close by, threatening you. The disparity argument works if they display weapons (ability) and intent, but unarmed it only works if they're actively beating the stuffing out of you AND you reasonably fear for your life. Standing on the corner shouting at you for shooting their buddy doesn't meet the test. Even so, there is a big difference between their fists and your firearm - by definition, firearm use equals lethal force. It is imperative for everyone with a CCW to know the laws governing lethal force in their jurisdiction.

A good lesson can be learned from the Oklahoma pharmacist who went from lawful self defense to murder within a span of perhaps 30 seconds.

end of lecture. sorry, got on my soapbox.

[Xanatos]

I didn't mean to come off as "shoot first, ask questions later" or that if someone tried to steal my lawnmower my first inclination would be to shoot him. However, in that lawnmower scenario, I would fight back with fists if that's what the suspect was using against me and would only gravitate to a handgun or lethal force if I was likely to result in serious injury as a result of a beating or if he pulled a knife or other such instrument.

[jon_in_wv]

Careful of the "gravitating to a gun" mentality too. You would have to be justified in the initial use of force too. If you get in a altercation with someone and decide to fight, then things go bad for you and you draw your weapon, you may find yourself in a HEAP of trouble. Can you imagine a lawyer arguing that the poor defendant was stealing your property to buy food for his poor family when in a fit of anger you attacked him with your fists. He pulls out a screwdriver to defend himself and you callously shoot him. They will argue that if you witnessed the theft you could have just called the police. You didn't need to use force on him. He was just taking the property, he wasn't threatening you but you HAD to make it a physical altercation. Does your state law allow you to use deadly force to stop a petty theft? If it doesn't you better be ready for some jail time. Maybe a lot of it.
I'd rather snap a few pics of him stealing it. Let HIM go to jail, not me.

[Balog]

I'm sorry, can we back up to the OP for a second here? Did you really suggest shooting people who are near the guy mugging you, because A. they might possibly become a threat at some later point & B. to eliminate witnesses? Really?

I thought this board had a "don't suggest murdering people" rule but perhaps I am mistaken. I can only hope you're never involved in a self-defense shooting, as I've gotta think "Should I kill any witnesses, you know, just in case?" would sound just as bad to a jury trying to determine if you were reasonable in your actions as it does to me.

[jon_in_wv]

That seems about right. He has suggested a few things that would be, well, inadvisable.

[Don P]

You stated both BG are armed.
You shoot it in what IDPA calls tactical sequence closest to furthest away providing both BG are displaying guns. Best be quick at it and get your hits to count.

[Nnobby45]

Shoot the first one with a gun nearest to you. If the other keep coming, shoot the loudest or closest........

Rob Pincus put out a pretty good video in which he addressed the multiple assailant scenario. It's called "Shooting in Realistic Environments" which fits in quite well with the subject under discussion.

I'm in complete agreement with him that your mind can't process all that information that fast. You aren't going to figure out that Bubba #1 has a knife and he's closest, but Bubba #2 has a shotgun 15 ft. away, and Bubba #3 has a handgun and he's behind Bubba#1. I like his strategy to start engaging as best you can and fight--with cover and lateral movement being potential life savers.

If you happen to see the guy with the shotgun and decide he's the biggest threast and want to engage him first while Bubba #1 is about to slice your liver in two with his knife, or #3 is about to perforate your frame with 9mm, then good luck to you.

That doesn't mean that one or the other won't be the obvious biggest threat and allow you to act accordingly in some instances.


If you were standing on the edge of a small stream and some one gave you a push, you be dancing across without time to decide what rock you're going to step on ahead of time. You'll just be doing it.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

[Sefner]

As already been said, know your laws in your state etc etc. For instance, here in MI, being attacked by multiple offender, even if they are un or lightly armed, lethal force is justifiable (depending on circumstances). So if you're surrounded by four guys and none of them have weapons, you're still in the clear. Granted you will go through legal and societal hell for what you did (again, as already been stated), you're the one going home that night. Let me repeat that: in MI (your state may be different), threat from multiple assailants, regardless of whether or not they are armed, is considered a threat great enough to use lethal force. Incidentally, this extends to a lot of other interesting situations (for instance the ever-mentioned 260lb football player assaulting the 80 year old woman with his bare hands, she is justified).

One bit of advice that will save lives is to give them the money and see if they go away. Even one-on-one odds aren't good in this situation (if they are robbing you they already have the drop on you - otherwise they wouldn't be robbing you right now - so you're already behind the reaction curve).

Other than that, the general idea here is the same (obviously each situation will have different variables that may change this): Eliminate threats in the order of danger. Most dangerous first, then the next threat, then the next. Stop when the threats stop.

Also I haven't seen this mentioned: The best way to get out of this alive is to never get into this situation in the first place. Situational awareness. You should never be surrounded and not realize it unless they jump out of hidden doors and corners.

[Jedburgh]

Assuming you have multiple viable threats and feel your life is in danger - I'd go with roadhouse rules - Everyone gets some before anyone gets seconds.

DOL

[BGutzman]

A lot of people have made a lot of good points even if I didn't read every post.

It seems to me the question really come down to two things.
1. Are these people who may or may not be a part of the crime visibly moving for a weapon?

2. Are any of these people close enough or closing to engage you with deadly force? Are you sure this person is not coming to your aid or a undercover officer?

If the answer to either of these is no (I am not a lawyer) then it would seem to me to not be a justified shoot for these other people or at the very least, very, very questionable for these people hanging around.

Would it be reasonable to keep your gun drawn and in a ready position but not directly aimed at these other people until you confirm in your mind that you are in imminent danger of death from a clearly defined individual or individuals or determine that you are safe. - I think it would be reasonable if it was for a very brief period immediately after downing a BG with intent, a prosecutor may disagree but it seems reasonable.

[OldMarksman]

I'm sorry, can we back up to the OP for a second here? Did you really suggest shooting people who are near the guy mugging you, because A. they might possibly become a threat at some later point & B. to eliminate witnesses? Really?

I'm not sure he actually suggested it, but from his questions it is clear that he is open to considering such a course of action:

What I'm concerned about is what about the others who haven't shown any immediate threat?

Natural survival instincts tell me that it's in my best interest to shoot anyone who is associated with the armed robber because who knows if they're armed or not and if they chose the life of crime then they chose the risks that came with that as well. Like the quote I often heard defending CC, "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6."

Also, who knows if I let the other BG run away if they'll just get out of sight, pull out their own guns, and shoot me while I'm busy pulling out my phone to report the shooting.

Also, if the BG happened to be gang related, their would be less likely of a blowback because there are no witnesses on their end to know what I look like and I'm sure the police would be cooperative enough to hide my identity if it was indeed a self defense shooting.

If you're attacked by multiple assailants and you can get the draw, would you just eliminate the immediate threat or all possible threats?

I can only hope you're never involved in a self-defense shooting, as I've gotta think "Should I kill any witnesses, you know, just in case?" would sound just as bad to a jury trying to determine if you were reasonable in your actions as it does to me.

Not only would such an act be indefensible, the very manner in which these permanent and discoverable posted questions were phrased just might cast serious doubt on the defendant's state of mind and weaken any attempt by a defense attorney to mount a case...

[Balog]

It never ceases to amaze me the things people will post on the internet. My rule is "If I wouldn't say it to the DA after a self defense shoot, I shouldn't post it online."

I think the question of "One guy is attacking me, his friends aren't visibly armed, are they still a threat?" is legitimate and valuable. "Should I kill the witnesses?" is not.

[The Tourist]

Tens of millions of Americans walk home during the nightshift, but there are not millions of gunfights. To address the OP's concerns, is there a threat, or do we seek to make one?

For example, I don't believe knife fights exist. Oh, I believe in knife attacks, but there is a formidable cottage industry in selling bowie knife dueling. And yet, when the question in asked about real examples, about the best we can discern is war stories from a "friend of a friend."

The point arises that not all people work in safe neighborhoods, and I am sensitive to that. But we all have a myriad of choices long before we drop the hammer on a crowd of people. In fact, if I read that actual story in a local newspaper I'd think the guy had seen too many Steven Segal movies.

The reason they report gunfights is that they are rare.

[Capt. Charlie]

I thought this board had a "don't suggest murdering people" rule but perhaps I am mistaken.

We have a very strong rule on this! Good Lord! How in blazes we missed this, I'll never know. Nor can I understand how this thread got to forty-some posts with no one reporting it before now.

Obviously, I'm pulling the plug on this one, but had the idea of shooting witnesses been even a tiny bit more concrete, I'd be taking a lot stronger action than merely closing a thread .

Once again, I refer you to my sig line.

Closed.