The "Danger Zone" and the "Step-back technique"

[JohnH1963]

I saw this article in another thread and it addresses two issues:

http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/T.../How.Close.htm

1) Danger Zone- It takes about 1.5 seconds to draw and fire off two rounds. It takes the attacker about 1.5 seconds to move 7 yards. Therefore, any distance within 7 yards of yourself is considered the "Danger Zone"

2) Step-back technique- When drawing your weapon, automatically step-back 3-5 feet in order to create a buffer and increase the time it would take for the attacker to get to you. In your movements, try to get behind objects that might put a blockaid in front of the attacker such as garbage cans.

3) Shooting someone who is beyond the "Danger Zone" can get you into legal trouble unless they have some type of weapon that can reach beyond the zone. A man who is 25 yards away and charging you with a bat is not a threat yet. Once they reach within the zone, then they become a threat.

4) Develop a tactical awareness and try to avoid the situation.

[jgcoastie]

Good advice, thanks for the post.

[zzbruno]

" A man who is 25 yards away and charging you with a bat is not a threat yet."

In an otherwise informative post, that is an absurd statement. Distance does not define a threat, action and intent defines a threat. Your right to protect yourself does not stop outside any so-called "Danger Zone." 25 yards would be right around the point that any bat swinger charging me would get his first and last warning to stop.

Drawing and firing inside 7 yards will normally take the non-proficent gun owner closer to 3-5 seconds, not 1.5, especially with an IWB carry. If you're an IDPA shooter whose done it a couple of hundred times, you can trim that down a bit, but I doubt that's the case with the vast majority of gun owners.

[omega]

Drawing and firing inside 7 yards will normally take the non-proficent gun owner closer to 3-5 seconds, not 1.5, especially with an IWB carry. If you're an IDPA shooter whose done it a couple of hundred times, you can trim that down a bit, but I doubt that's the case with the vast majority of gun owners.

I agree. A two second draw and double-tap would be a dubious accomplishment, for even a reasonably experienced gunner in CC street equipment distracted by a wild seven-yard advancing assailant.

But the step-back technique is great advice in most any confrontation, similar to a quarterback dropping back into the protection of his pocket.

And of course the laws regarding deadly force are sooo different from state to state. In a more political progressive state like CA or MD, you better have lots of money and a darn good lawyer to get your butt out of a clear-cut self defense jam. But in a state like FL, the guns laws are so conservative (as in politically conservative) that the 'castle doctrine' nearly applies to your personal space in public locations. I say nearly in that the FL law is a SHALL issue CCW permits to all good citizens, and little old ladies on any public sidewalk are free to shoot the BG if she feels at all legitimately threatened, without obligation to retreat. . - . very few questions asked.

Florida is a nice place to live.

[Rosco Benson]

As to the "step back" technique; bear in mind that your attacker can move forward faster than you can move backwards. Instead of stepping back, it might be better to move off-line of the attack. This might involve side-stepping or even advancing off to the sideline of the attack.

Rosco

[JohnH1963]

Keep in mind this article was meant for police officers who have specific experience and training drawing their weapons. Therefore, people who do not have the training or practice may need more time with their draw.

Another point the article makes is to draw your weapon as soon as the threat is established. For example, the man at 25 yards charging with a bat. You can go ahead and draw your weapon when you see the man is in full charge with the bat even if he is a far distance away.

I speak in general terms when I say this because I do not know the laws in all areas. You may want to check the laws in your local area... The only time you can fire the weapon is when the man becomes an immediate threat to yourself. The words "immediate threat" are subject to interpretation by a judge or jury. The further away the threat, the more difficult it will be to prove the man was an immediate threat. Remember, the jury will only hear versions of the various stories and might even see pictures of the crime scene. However, they will not actually be there to see what you went through.

If you fire at the man at 25 yards, you might have a harder time proving he was an immediate threat then if he was at 7 yards.

The article also specifically states that value behind firm commands such as "Stop! Drop your weapon!" These words can be used as tools in the court room to prove that you did everything you could before firing.

So the courts will be looking for two things and, again, I say this in a general sense without regard for the local laws in certain areas. 1) Was the target an immediate threat? 2) Did you do all you could to prevent the situation and was this truly a last resort action?

Although not clearly stated in the article, the article implies that situational avoidance and retreat are the best ways to deal with such situations. When your pistol discharges, you are going to get into hot water somehow.

[smince]

I don't get the 'stepping back' thing. You are still in the line of attack.

I'd much prefer to move away at angles if possible (unless a hallway or something prevented it). It makes more practical sense to me.

[CWPinSC]

OP - that's an excellent post and the guidelines I use myself.

In an otherwise informative post, that is an absurd statement. Distance does not define a threat, action and intent defines a threat.

You, sir, are wrong. The bad guy must have intent, ability, and opportunity. In your scenario - he has intent, he's advancing menacingly. He has ability, he has a deadly weapon. From 25 feet he has no opportunity. He's too far away to use the bat.

Stepping back or to the side increases the distance, which gives you time. Even in a "no duty to retreat" state like SC, a tactical retreat is usually a good thing.

I disagree with the time span zzbruno states. I can usually draw and get one round off in 2 seconds. I practice a lot. If you're someone who doesn't practice, then yes, increase your "danger zone" distance.

Shouting a warning such as "STOP OR I WILL SHOOT YOU!" or "DROP YOUR WEAPON!" Is a good thing, IF you have time. It'll look good in court. In the "danger zone", you don't have the time.

And that gets us to situational awareness. If you let someone get into the "danger zone" and you haven't drawn your weapon yet - you missed something.

[zzbruno]

You, sir, are wrong. The bad guy must have intent, ability, and opportunity. In your scenario - he has intent, he's advancing menacingly. He has ability, he has a deadly weapon. From 25 feet he has no opportunity. He's too far away to use the bat.

Uh, no, I'm not. You are. In fact, you're way off.
The threshold for assault is thus:

Assault
An assault involves:

An intentional, unlawful threat or "offer" to cause bodily injury to another by force;
Under circumstances which create in the other person a well-founded fear of imminent peril;
Where there exists the apparent present ability to carry out the act if not prevented.
Note that an assault can be completed even if there is no actual contact with the plaintiff, and even if the defendant had no actual ability to carry out the apparent threat. For example, a defendant who points a realistic toy gun at the plaintiff may be liable for assault, even though the defendant was fifty feet away from the plaintiff and had no actual ability to inflict harm from that distance.

And if you read what I wrote, I said an experienced shooter "may" be able to draw and fire in under 2 seconds, but the vast majority who have not practiced it repeated probably could not.

[Old Grump]

I disagree with the time span zzbruno states. I can usually draw and get one round off in 2 seconds. I practice a lot. If you're someone who doesn't practice, then yes, increase your "danger zone" distance.

Key phrase is you practice a lot. Most people don't and some who would cannot because of range restrictions and don't do dry fire drills.

I have shot a lot of competition and I know that moving and shooting are not friends, especially at a moving target and your adrenaline level is spiking.

I have a bad back and one leg doesn't work, (nerve damage in my back affects my right leg). 25' or 25 yards, if a weapon wielding man is coming at me in a threatening manner I am not moving, backwards, sideways or climbing a tree. I will deploy any weapon available and do anything I can to stop an attacker whether its a slug from a 12 gauge, a hardball from a 45 or whacking him with my crutch. You do what you need to do when you need to do it.

[JohnKSa]

Note that an assault can be completed even if there is no actual contact with the plaintiff, and even if the defendant had no actual ability to carry out the apparent threat.

Irrelevant. Simple assault, in and of itself, is not grounds for use of deadly force.

What CWPinSC posted was correct.

In the case of the toy gun, deadly force would be justified because a reasonable person would assume that an attacker at 25 yards with a firearm pointed at you has intent, ability and opportunity to cause death or serious injury. An attacker at 25 yards with a contact weapon does not. He can assault you from that distance but simple assault, in and of itself is not grounds for use of deadly force.

[Double Naught Spy]

Distance does not define a threat, action and intent defines a threat.

Uh, no, I'm not. You are. In fact, you're way off.
The threshold for assault is thus:

You are mixing and matching terms. You have equated "assault" with being a "threat" when the two are not synonymous. A person may "threaten" you without being a "threat" to you.

So in the guise of intent, ability, and opportunity, distance may certainly be a factor. At 25 yards, a person swinging a baseball may threaten you (and commit an assault), but is not actually a threat to you because of the issue of opportunity and ability. Because he is that far away, he does not have the opportunity to harm you by swinging the baseball bat. His ability to do you have is limited by the range of the weapon - the arc of the swing.

Now, if you change that to say that the bad guy was attempting to throw that bat at you and believed his had the ability to hit you with it, then he would have ability and opportunity.

[Shane Tuttle]

I'm in agreement with smince, here. If my option to do so is open, I'm stepping back, but not straight back. I'm taking an angle to it. There are many, many reasons why cutting at an angle is advisable.

One thing I didn't see in the article that should have been, is only step back if you had the time to make sure obstacles aren't in your way. You could easily trip up stepping back due to the smallest of objects. My feet aren't leaving the ground if possible to feel my way as I'm retreating.

That's the way I was trained, anyway...

[Hook686]

CWPinSC wrote:

OP - that's an excellent post and the guidelines I use myself.


In an otherwise informative post, that is an absurd statement. Distance does not define a threat, action and intent defines a threat.

You, sir, are wrong. The bad guy must have intent, ability, and opportunity. In your scenario - he has intent, he's advancing menacingly. He has ability, he has a deadly weapon. From 25 feet he has no opportunity. He's too far away to use the bat.

I think your judgement, and JohnKSa, flawed. You seem to believe both the attacker and the victim are phyically fit and physical equals. A younger man than me in average physical condition has a very real chance of caving in my skull, if he has the intent.

25 yards can be covered by a man already in motion, in what 4 seconds ? A previous post seemed to suggest that the average untrained CCW holder would be lucky to get a shot off in 4 seconds. It seems to me this means the average guy is in a bad situation, and ability, intent and opportunity are very much present.

For a less than average phyically conditioned person, the situation seems even more severe to me. In other words I take a 'Simple assault' as very life/serious injury threatening

[zzbruno]

Irrelevant. Simple assault, in and of itself, is not grounds for use of deadly force.

You say that with the conviction of an experienced attorney. If that's legal advice, I'd encourage you to reconsider.


Please consult Self Defense under the Model Penal Code for the correct answer. You most certainly can use deadly force in the case of simple assault, if you believe that your safety is in peril. Here, let me cite the Modern Penal Code directly:

Model Penal Code – The Code specifically sets forth the situations in which deadly force is justifiable: when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary to protect himself on the present occasion against:

1.) death;
2.) serious bodily injury;
3.) forcible rape; or
4.) kidnapping.


Furthermore, it is most certainly relevant, if the victim has a belief that the perpetrator intends to harm him, those under his protection, or his property. The burden of proof on whether or not that this belief is "reasonable" is the part that's not relevant.

§ 8.04 "Reasonable Belief"

The privilege of self-defense is based on reasonable appearances, rather than on objective reality. Thus, a person is justified in using force to protect himself if he subjectively believes that such force is necessary to repel an imminent unlawful attack, even if appearances prove to be false.


I don't understand what the difficulty here it. Someone claims that's there a magical "Ring of Danger" that you have to be in to defend yourself. That's ludicrous. I'm not saying you can start taking shots at some crazy person swinging a bat within the potential range of your weapon, but get real. If you don't think a 32 oz Louisville Slugger is capable of serious bodily injury, good luck with that.

The assertion made was that someone was charging you with a bat (accepted as a lethal weapon) and was not a threat because he's 25 yards away is CRAZY TALK. There are hundreds (if not thousands) of cases on the books where a victim used deadly force against/under circumstance far more cloudy than those described above. Not long ago, here in Hawaii, a man high on meth brandishing a machete was shot in the front yard of the homeowner. Was he 25 yards away? Probably not--probably closer to 20 yards away, but he had already committed ASSAULT and was a PERIL to the homeowner and his property. BANG, BANG.



Now, I don't have 20,000 posts to back up my assertions, but then again, I do have a wife who is a former Federal Prosecutor and currently a law professor. I gotta figure between her and my father, a retired cop, they probably have the skinny on this.

[troy_mclure]

on the bat wielding guy at 25': if he is moving, that 25' is gonna go fast, faster than most people can draw, aim, and shoot. especialy with the guys that go with deep concealment cary.

[JohnKSa]

on the bat wielding guy at 25'

Not 25', 25 yards--75'.

Model Penal Code – The Code specifically sets forth the situations in which deadly force is justifiable: when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary to protect himself on the present occasion against:

1.) death;
2.) serious bodily injury;
3.) forcible rape; or
4.) kidnapping.

None of those things are simple assault. Simple assault can be as innocuous as a verbal threat or shaking one's fist at a person.

§ 8.04 "Reasonable Belief"

The privilege of self-defense is based on reasonable appearances, rather than on objective reality. Thus, a person is justified in using force to protect himself if he subjectively believes that such force is necessary to repel an imminent unlawful attack, even if appearances prove to be false.

This would be a defense if someone attacked you with a fake gun and you defended yourself by shooting him under the reasonable belief that he had a real gun. It would not be a defense for shooting someone who verbally threatened you and shook his fist at you (simple assault) but was too far away to cause you harm.

I do have a wife who is a former Federal Prosecutor and currently a law professor. I gotta figure between her and my father, a retired cop, they probably have the skinny on this.

Great. Ask your wife and father what will happen if you shoot someone for committing simple assault.

I don't understand what the difficulty here it. Someone claims that's there a magical "Ring of Danger" that you have to be in to defend yourself. That's ludicrous. I'm not saying you can start taking shots at some crazy person swinging a bat within the potential range of your weapon, but get real. If you don't think a 32 oz Louisville Slugger is capable of serious bodily injury, good luck with that.

It's not a difficult concept. The attacker has to have intent, ability, and opportunity in order to constitute a credible threat to your well-being.

No one is saying a bat isn't capable of being used to kill or seriously injure. The point being made is that it is a contact weapon and can't be used to kill or seriously injure from 75 feet away. If the person keeps coming toward you and will not break off, at some point he DOES become a credible threat and then could legally be engaged with deadly force.

How close? That will be up to a jury and how convincing your defense is. It is generally accepted that 21' is too close for a defender to draw and fire before an attacker can close the distance and employ a contact weapon. 25 yards is more than 3 times farther away. I would say that somewhere between 75' and 21' is where an attacker with a contact weapon should be engaged if he will not break off. Trying to nail it down more precisely would require knowing the particular circumstances--it's not really possible with such a vaguely defined hypothetical situation.

[Double Naught Spy]

The burden of proof on whether or not that this belief is "reasonable" is the part that's not relevant.

And therein lies the crux of the problem. Is it reasonable to believe that somebody 25 yards away with a baseball bat poses a risk to you?

Not long ago, here in Hawaii, a man high on meth brandishing a machete was shot in the front yard of the homeowner. Was he 25 yards away? Probably not--probably closer to 20 yards away, but he had already committed ASSAULT and was a PERIL to the homeowner and his property. BANG, BANG.

Ah, the waffling has started. Now we have moved from 25 yards to maybe around 20 yards but even familial legal experts, the distance is not known with any certainty. Googling the vague information you provided didn't turn up any examples. You have a news account link? How about links to any cases where lethal force was justified for simple assault at a distance of 25 yards where the person lethal force was used against was only using a non-firearm contact weapon?

[Glenn Dee]

IMHO JohnH 1963 nailed it dead on. Mostly it's a judgment call. I will say though that putting your gun in hand as soon as you sense trouble will be a life-saver. Depending on a quick draw wont be as effective as one might think.

[CWPinSC]

The threshold for assault is thus:

JohnKSa and I are both correct. Yes, a simple assault can be committed from a distance. It can be communicated verbally by shouts and threats. It can be communicated physically by body language and/or the possession of a deadly weapon (i.e., ball bat). However, you can a NOT shoot for simple assault. If the bat wielder is not within arm's distance, he is not yet a "deadly force" threat. He does not have opportunity. It's a fine line as to whether you feel "in imminent danger of loss of life or grave bodily injury". In that case, I would draw and warn, but NOT shoot until he's within striking distance.

Put the bat down for a moment. Our CWP Instructor told us, "You can not use your weapon to save yourself from a good ol' fashioned ass whuppin'." And, "You must be in no way responsible for the altercation."

You can't kill for simple assault. Period.

FYI: A neighbor was recently shot and killed by a local LEO. The suspect charged the officer (intent) with a shovel, (ability) yelling, "I'm gonna kill you!" (that's a verbal assault - not shootable) The officer waited until the suspect was only 10 feet away (NOW there's opportunity) before he fired one shot and put the man down. Until the suspect threatened someone else, or was close enough to use the shovel on the officer, he had NO CAUSE to shoot. Only when the triad was complete (intent, ability, opportunity) did the officer shoot. An investigation very quickly deemed the shooting as righteous.

[zzbruno]

JohnKSa, DNS, you're conflating my response with someone else's.

You're the ones who claimed it was simple assault. The reference I provided regarding use of deadly force stands on the principle of self defense against a threat, not specifically assault and certainly not limited to simple assault, however in the case described by the OP, this is not simple assault. Your assertion that a perpetrator brandishing a baseball bat and "charging" you is simple assault is unsupportable by the reasonable man standard, logic, and precedent. If some one is "charging you with a bat" that is assault and most likely felony assault if intent can be established ("by word or deed"), range independent. Your repeated contention that this is "simple assault" confirms that you grasp neither the concept of assault, the threat of battery, nor the victim's fear as a precursor of assault or the relevance of subjectivity in either case.

I've provided you with sufficient evidence to support my claim. You both are wandering around on the periphery of this issue with "yeah, but" scenarios that are moving away from the initial claim that "shooting someone beyond the Danger Zone can get you into some kind of trouble unless they have a weapon that can reach beyond the zone." That was the claim of the OP and it's my contention that that is poor advice at best and certainly inaccurate in relation to substantiated case law. That position is untenable, not supported by legal precedent and dangerous.

The so-called "Danger Zone" has merit only in terms of situational awareness. If you rely on it to overthink your tactical decision-making process in matters of self defense, to include your need to draw and prepare to fire, you will at a minimum get a beat down, possibly have your weapon taken away from you and potentially suffer fatal consequences.

Now you want links, case law and examples? No problem. My wife charges $300/hour for research she does herself, $200/hour for the research her law students do, but let me recommend that you amp up your Google-fu and leg this one out on your own. You'll save a lot of money.

This was a discussion about what to do when you've downed a perp and his weapon is within reach. My position is that you sweep the weapon (kick, or for those of you too scared to kick, aggressively push with your foot) up and away from the perp so that he has no visual awareness of its location and so that you have a reasonable assurance that it's beyond his grasp. That allows you to keep your weapon trained on the threat, reduce the threat and to the maximum extent possible, preserve the crime scene without increasing risk to you or those under your protection. It's that simple. Ask any LEO or combat patrolman how they do it and I seriously doubt that you'll get a response that deviates from mine. Unless of course, you go "two to the chest, one to the head." But that's another thread.

I continue to be amazed by the internet lawyers here who offer, with the highest degree of confidence, advice predicated on their post count and not case law or articulated jurisprudence. I've been a member here for a couple of years, but don't post all that frequently, quite frankly because of the bullying, thuggish tactics of the "senior members." This thread has been instructive in that regard.

Your line of reasoning weakens with each detached and bifurcated response, so--press on.

[CWPinSC]

Key phrase is you practice a lot. Most people don't and some who would cannot because of range restrictions and don't do dry fire drills.

Let me put it this way, my carry piece is less than 6 months old and already has moderate holster wear on the slide. When I use a public restroom and put my piece on the tissue holder, it's put there by a quick draw. When I put it on for the day, it's drawn and re-holstered several times. There are so many opportunities you have to practice the technique of a fast draw. It's like doing the figures in ice skating. When you have those down pat, the rest comes easily. Now, I'm not claiming to be a fast draw artist, but I very seldom flub a pull. Start with slow and smooth - quick will come with practice. "Slow and smooth" is actually faster than "quick and jerky".

Grumpy, you're right. In the case of someone who doesn't practice a lot, or is physically incapacitated in some way, the "danger zone" must be increased (as I posted). One good technique is (if you have to move) pivot around the muzzle. That way, you're always aimed at the attacker. I'm lucky, I have one indoor range that doesn't care what type of shooting I practice, and an outdoor range where I can practice moving a lot or a distance situation.

[zzbruno]

I made no contention that you can "kill for simple assault." Again, you're reconstructing the argument to fit your narrative.

Let me restate:

You have the right to defend yourself, those under your protection and your property against those whom you reasonably believe to do you grievous bodily harm.

You seem to be hung up on the concept of "simple assault." Well, it's not that simple. You see, YOU get to decide who you reasonably believe to be causing you grievous bodily harm. If you decide a bat-swinger 25 yards away has the intent to cause you grievous bodily harm, if you can hit him, you can whack him. Of course, it'll be up to a jury of your peers to decide if you had cause, but again, the burden of proof is based upon what your perception of the threat was.

Get past the concept of simple assault, or at least what you believe to be simple assault. This is not an issue of what you believe to be "simple" assault and what was described in the OP's message (most likely felony assault, menacing, or terroristic threat).

I'll put this as charitably as possible. Any CHP that says "you cannot use your weapon to save yourself from a good old fashioned ass whuppin" is an idiot. At what point do you discern that an ass whoopin' becomes fatal?? Right before you flat-line?

You use your weapon to prevent harm to you and yours. If you're willing to take an "ass whoopin' " to decide what your tolerance level is, more power to you; you've just become an unnecessary but deserving victim.

The first rule of holes is, when you're in a hole, quit digging. You've gone back for a sharper shovel and been left wanting.

[Al Thompson]

I practice bunches and completely agree with Glenn Dee. Having the gun in hand is much better than having it in holster. If your carry method allows it, it's a great tool to have a "stealth" draw for those awkward times.

[Glenn Dee]

Conflating?.. new one on me...lol. OK ( i know this will get me in trouble) In order to claim self defense... you must be in imediate danger. In danger of death or serious physical injury. There is no other excuse for using deadly physical force. Period. All these imagined scenarios are fine... but they are just that. Imagined scenerios. The only problem I have with that is... you prepare, and train for these scenarios... prepare for an imagined scenario, and BANG!!! reality happens... If any of you know any police Officers
Invite them to coffee one day. Ask if he will tell you about the armed robbery reports he's taken. Ask about the felonious assault reports. Be honest about why your curious... Look closely at the victimology. Look for where the victim may have avoided the trouble. Try to notice when/where the victim may have been able to defend him/herself. A couple of real world experiences are worth all the imagined scenarios put together.

I think it's real important for ALL police officers to remember who they work for. They work for the people. All the people... Including firearms enthusiasts. I have noticed more than a few former, and current cops in the forum. I as a retired police officer have no problem sharing with the forum... yet lol.

So this is an armed robbery that really happened to an unarmed victim. The victim I shall call charley worked the evening shift at a train repair shop. He came home every night at the same time... parked his car... went into his apartment bulding... got on the elevator... rode it to his third floor apartment... had a late supper... and took his german shepard out for a walk. On this particular evening (12:30 am) he drove around his block several times looking for a parking spot... he found one, parked, and went into the bulding as usual. When he got off the elevator on the third floor three men were waiting for him armed with guns they took his entire pay envelope.

During the interview Charly mentioned to the officer that while he was driving around he noticed some guys hanging around in front of the bulding. He also said that when he entered the bulding they were gone... Charley also said that when the elevator got to his floor he could see some figures through the opaque elevator window, and heard male voices talking in hushed tones...

What if anything could Charlie have done to avoid trouble?, At what point could charlie have defended himself if he had been armed? I know this sounds like a quiz... it's not it's just a real world incident. I know I learned a lot from it... I hope that everyone else does too.

Thanks
Glenn