CCW Scenario...Opinions Please

[Dog Confetti]

I'm not a fan of "what if..." type posts, but there's a potential/likely scenario that I don't have a good answer for and I'd like some opinions.

Suppose you are carrying concealed and you find yourself in a physical confrontation with an unarmed (assume you are equally or slightly overmatched) individual, and for whatever reason you cannot avoid the fight. It is my belief that if you are armed you cannot afford to get into knock down fight even if the other individual is unarmed because you may lose control of the weapon (even if that was not the other persons intent)...however, it's inappropriate (at least) to draw down on someone who is only threatening you with a possible ass-beating.

What are your thoughts?

[butch50]

How do you know it will stop at a beating? Many people have been killed by fists and boots.

If I had done all that I should and could to avoid a fight, and still found myself being beaten by an unarmed man then I would draw and fire. I would be in fear for my life because I had done everything I could to avoid this fight and yet this person was so psyco that he attacked me anyway.

If he beat me into unconciousness what would happen then? Would he just stop and walk away? Maybe and maybe not.... If he was so psyco mad to pursue me and begin beating me after I had done everything within reason to avoid it, then I would have to presume that he would beat me until I either needed an ambulance or a mortician.

If he was only threatening me with a beating I would simply back away and leave the area, if possible. If I could not back away and leave the area and I could not talk him off the ledge then I would pull the gun, and be ready to shoot. If he attacked I would shoot.

[Dog Confetti]

I'm not refering to stopping a beating with a gun...I'm referring to the necessity of avoiding a fist fight if you're armed. I'm assuming the opponent has the "opprotunity", but neither the "means" nor the "intent"...or do you consider the possibility that he may get ahold of your weapon (assuming that he doesn't even know you're armed at the start of the fight) "means" in it's own right. If the law wasn't an issue then I wouldn't have an issue, but...

There are times when we could all use a little beating to put us in out places, but we can't afford to take it if we're carrying..."Time out dude, I gotta put something away..."

[XavierBreath]

If you are carrying a weapon, you cannot afford to give it up to someone who wants to do you harm. I think butch gave a good answer.

[Duxman]

Dog, sorry no draw and shoot for me. (In this scenario)

Have been a practioner of the martial arts since age 13. Being an ex-kickboxing instructor - I practice about 3 times a week. Even if the person were physically larger, there are certain streetfighting techniques which can allow you to neutralize your opponent - now some of it involves breaking his kneecap, getting his arm into a immobilization hold, or even blows to weak points in the human anatomy. But it should take down 95% of opponents out there.

Now if there were 2 or 3 and they were all skilled fighters, and my life or loved ones life is in danger. Different story.

[Massan]

I can see the proscuetors now.

"He was training himself to be a thug since he was a little kid and broke that poor mans arm/knee/etc, did you also know he was carrying a weapon(without mentioning you had a ccw)"

Damn press is gonna have a field day.

"Gun weilding psycho serisouly injures random bystander on streets, congress calls for more gun control" Despite that little fact that you didnt even use your gun... :barf:

[chris in va]

Virginia has a CCW clause for 'great bodily harm' if I remember right.

[Overman]

Virginia has a CCW clause for 'great bodily harm' if I remember right

As does Colorado. And from everything I've read, fists to ones face (or intent to put said fist to ones face) certainly justifies emptying the cylinder (the usual caveats apply. Fight not your fault. You tried to avoid the fight. Yadda Yadda).

At least in Colorado, the prosecutors and the sherrifs are relativly reasonable. Sucks to be in the northeast, eh? The media, well, their possible hysterics are not going to stop me from putting an end to getting my ass kicked.

[kirkcdl]

QUOTE:"the necessity of avoiding a fist fight if you're armed"

Is ABSOLUTE,nothing more needs to be said,Whatever it takes...

[FrankDrebin]

Depends who's on your jury when they charge you with the homicide. If you have a bunch of pansies you might be OK.....If you have a bunch of guys who routinely get in fights in the bars on payday night, you're in trouble.

If you were carrying a gun, and killed an unarmed man who you reasonably believed to be unarmed and you didn't have a mark on you when it was all over, depending on the circumstances, I might vote to send you to prison if I were on the jury.

[mvpel]

You say whatever you have to say in order to save the other guy's life.

The moment a beating starts, you don't get to call "time" and put an end to it - when he lays a finger on you in anger, it's too late to define the extent and severity of the beating you might receive, and whether or not he stops kicking your head when you become unconscious.

So if this means you say "Yes sir, I'm a p****y, I'm a wimp, you're absolutely right, I'm absolutely wrong, let me buy you a beer" in order to get him to calm down and refrain from hitting you, then that might not be a bad thing to say. Whether he knows it or not, his life is at stake if he continues his confrontation with you.

The legal aspect comes down to "reasonable fear" - even if you don't have a mark on you, you can be justified in defensive deadly force if you were in reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death.

[azspyder]

This post is interesting to me, because this scenario is the one I fear most. I have a CCW in AZ and carry a 3" Kimber. I practice with it at least three times a month and am reasonably proficient in markmanship, drawing from concealment etc. However, I would not be in the least competent in a physical confrontation...I am 73 years and not nearly as agile as I used to be. I think I would try my best to verbally defuse the situation and try to get the hell out of there. If that failed, I would not hesitate to draw my weapon and, if necessary, use it.
I confess, I do have an ace in the hole...my brother-in-law is a deputy county attorney. :-)

[Mannlicher]

In most cases, if he whips yer butt, and you shoot him, then its manslaughter for you. Good luck.

[HighValleyRanch]

i usually don't like all the what if's senarios, but this is a good one to ponder as it's probably one of the most likely to occur.
If you are carrying, the weapon is open to either party. Sure the BG does not know if you are packing, but in any ensueing scuffle he might find out, or if you are knocked uncnscious, he might find your weapon.
Agree with all the the fist-a-cuffs must be avoided at all costs if you are carrying.
In fact, since i have studied martial arts most of my life, and taught for some years, I would most likely be toast for some hot shot lawyer, whether I subdued the opponent with physical or weapon force.. So my motto has been to avoid confrontation at all costs, whether armed or not. Contrary to my younger days.
I think that many CCW's might think about showing or drawing to stop the confrontation. How do you know that he is unarmed? He might have a knife or is carrying himself....
But then it raises to the next level. You draw and threat, he approaches, ....are you really ready to take the next step and suffer the consequences for your actions?
The CCW class raised some great points on after the incident. Most likely you will be sued and it's going to cost about $50,000 to get it all cleared up. Take one year off your life, and that amount off your mortgage. This is according to studies by the sheriffs dept.

That's a lot of bucks just to prove your manhood! Think about it and walk away.

[butch50]

If you have already tried to walk away, tried to not be engaged in a fight, and if you are not able to do so - he has you backed into a corner or whatever, and If you think that at best you might win a fist fight after a long protracted bout but you very well may lose the fight and thus control of the situation -

Under these circumstances I would feel justified in pulling my gun, finger on the trigger safety off and giving him a warning. If the bg still tried to beat me then I would shoot him.

This would be an extremely rare scenario for me, highly unlikely. On the once in a blue moon occasion that I go into a bar I do not carry, against the law here. (Back in the day when I went into bars more often I never once got into a fight anyway) So that would not apply, in a bar I don't have a gun. I can't imagine where else I might get into a situation where someone would decide to thump on me, except maybe after a fender-bender in traffic. Certainly not just walking from my car to the supermarket, or in any of my ordinary day to day activities.

But under the above circumstances, yes I would shoot him to stop him from causing me bodily harm, which he has no right to cause me in spite of what the media and liberals may think - no one has the right to lay a finger on me; regardless of whether it costs him his life or not to stop him.

[FrankDrebin]

But under the above circumstances, yes I would shoot him to stop him from causing me bodily harm, which he has no right to cause me in spite of what the media and liberals may think - no one has the right to lay a finger on me; regardless of whether it costs him his life or not to stop him.

Good luck. You don't have the legal right to kill someone because they gave you a black eye (bodiliy harm). Nor do you have the legal right to shoot someone because they "laid a finger on you".

[butch50]

Frank, yes I do.

I have no requirement under law to submit to physical damage when I have attempted to avoid it. Neither do you.

[azspyder]

AZ law says a citizen has the right to self-defense if he fears for his life or bodily harm. Fearing bodily harm (the severity of it) has a different level for a senior citizen than it does for a 40 year old. Punching out the young guy may leave bruises but no permanent damage. Doing the same to a senior, leaving him with a broken hip and in a wheelchair for the rest of his life, is a different matter entirely. The law takes that into account. IMHO

[butch50]

No one is required under any state or federal law to submit to being beaten under any circumstances.

If I am wrong, post the law and show me.

[Rojoe67]

I agree with you again..........

You have given reasonable explaination and it's how I look at the issue as well. We all have to make up our minds on a split second. I would again resubmit the idea of backing down, leaving, talking down a hostile person and if all those fail and I am in fear of great injury or death I will be taking the actions to stop attack....... Alive in my book means more than lawsuit by the attacker's family. Let them sue me for all my coins ........ Life is without fixed price tag.......

[FrankDrebin]

Frank, yes I do.

I have no requirement under law to submit to physical damage when I have attempted to avoid it. Neither do you.

Like I said...good luck if you ever kill an unarmed man in a bar fight....Around here, the rule is that you have the right to shoot someone when you reasonably fear death or GREAT bodily harm. Great bodily harm is a lot different than "bodily harm". Granted, if you're 80 years old, what might be great bodily harm for you might not be for a younger person. Be that as it may, I'd love to see your state law that says you have the right to kill someone because you feared mere "bodily harm". I never said you had to "SUBMIT" to an assault. I'm telling you, you'll be in deep trouble if you kill an unarmed man over an assault and battery, and then go in there and tell the prosecutor you had the right to kill him because he threatened you with "bodily harm". You may think it's an inconsequential dispute about semantics, but there are a lot of people in prison based on simple semantics.

AZ law says a citizen has the right to self-defense if he fears for his life or bodily harm.

Can you cut and paste the applicable law? Does it say you have the right to use deadly force for anything less than a reasonably perceived threat of death or GREAT bodily harm? The force used in self defense must be proportionatly reasonable to the threat. That doesn't mean killing someone because they punched you in the nose in a bar fight. You hear a lot of people in these discussions throwing around the "better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6" cliche. You DON'T hear a lot of people doing 12 to 20 for second degree murder or manslaughter using that expression.

[XavierBreath]

I don't think it is a question of semantics, or even a question of legality. It's a question of life and death. If you are carrying a gun and succumb in a fist fight, the other party may very well take your gun and blow your brains out with it. It has happened before, and it can happen again.
The simple fact that you have a gun on your hip does not mean that you are the only one who can use it. If you are not prepared for this reality, then it's best to stay out of bar room brawls.
Frank and other policemen may feel the need to subdue violent people with bare hands and a gun on their hip, but private citizens do not have that training or that obligation. This is one area where the double standard works against the cop.

[FrankDrebin]

I don't think it is a question of semantics, or even a question of legality. It's a question of life and death. If you are carrying a gun and succumb in a fist fight, the other party may very well take your gun and blow your brains out with it. It has happened before, and it can happen again.

Is it LIKELY, or even REASONABLE to think you should kill someone in a fist fight because they might get the gun that YOU brought to the fight? I don't think it is. Just because it's happened before doesn't make it reasonable. Lots of people are killed after being punched in the nose when they fall and hit their head on the ground. Does that mean you should kill someone who you think MIGHT punch you in the nose because other people have died after being punched in the nose?

I believe this is the law in Michigan:

M Civ JI 174.11 Felonious and Intentional Killing: Self-Defense—Definition
The killing was in self-defense if, at the time of the act, all of the following existed:

[Name of respondent] honestly and reasonably believed that [he / she] was in danger of being killed or receiving serious bodily harm.
Respondent honestly and reasonably believed that the use of force was immediately necessary to defend [himself / herself] from this danger.
Respondent used only the amount of force that appeared to [him / her] necessary at the time to defend [himself / herself] from this danger.

And I believe this is the definition of "serious injury".

“Serious injury” means permanent, serious disfigurement, serious impairment of health, or serious impairment of a bodily function of a person.

As I said before, if I were on the jury of a guy charged with a shooting, and it involved a 30 year old guy in reasonable shape who shot and killed an unarmed 30 year-old guy in a run of the mill bar fight because he was afraid of being punched in the face, and he came out of the whole thing without a mark on him, and said in court "I shot him because I was afraid he'd hit me and take my gun and shoot me while I was incapacitated", there's a good chance that the most he could hope for was a hung jury. Because I might very well be voting "guilty".

[XavierBreath]

Frank, simply put, this is why people who carry guns should not get into fist fights. I have yet to see a fist fight that could not have been avoided by one party backing down and walking away. Nobody "finds" themself in a physical confrontation as stated in the original post. They allow it to develop around them or even participate in making it happen.

I do not advocate getting into fist fights, with or without a gun. But given the choice of possibly going to prison for an extended stay or possibly going to the cemetery for an extended stay, I'll take prison.

there's a good chance that the most he could hope for was a hung jury. Because I might very well be voting "guilty".

Lets just say I trust a jury of my peers more than a man intent on beating my brains out. A hung jury is a good jury for the defense.

[FrankDrebin]

Frank, simply put, this is why people who carry guns should not get into fist fights.

Absolutely.....I'd even go one further......If you're the type of person who can't seem to avoid a fistfight, you shouldn't carry a gun.

I have yet to see a fist fight that could not have been avoided by one party backing down and walking away. Nobody "finds" themself in a physical confrontation as stated in the original post. They allow it to develop around them or even participate in making it happen.

I do not advocate getting into fist fights, with or without a gun. But given the choice of possibly going to prison for an extended stay or possibly going to the cemetery for an extended stay, I'll take prison.

I'd prefer to take my chances with my fists, or my escape, and try to avoid the cemetery and the prison both, and leave my gun for gunfights.....