when to pull?

[TheNocturnus]

@Oldmarksman

I'm 32 and disabled with a back injury. If someone threatens to beat me up there is a great chance they could do it with ease and cause great harm to my already fragile body.

As the OP stated "...someone comes up to you and says give me your wallet or ill beat you up..." that sounds like imminent harm to me.

I stand by my statement. I don't want to be beaten to death or become more disabled than I already am. I will shoot to stop the threat against me. I know my state laws and am smart enough to know that if the shoot is not justified then I won't shoot.

[Marquezj16]

This scenario happened in my area. As an older lady was getting in her car, a thief tried to snatch her purse. She drew her gun and the criminal ran away. The lady was not prosecuted.

I will draw if I feel like I am in "danger of bodily harm" and/or "to prevent a crime" from happening. I will shoot if my "life or the lives of my love ones are in imminent danger."

I'll have to look those terms up in my state laws to know what those circumstances are.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Nocturnus31: @Oldmarksman

I'm 32 and disabled with a back injury. If someone threatens to beat me up there is a great chance they could do it with ease and cause great harm to my already fragile body.

As the OP stated "...someone comes up to you and says give me your wallet or ill beat you up..." that sounds like imminent harm to me.

I stand by my statement. I don't want to be beaten to death or become more disabled than I already am. I will shoot to stop the threat against me. I know my state laws and am smart enough to know that if the shoot is not justified then I won't shoot.

Disabled with a back injury? Would that not constitute one of the disparity of force determinants discussed in Post #9?

It would not authorize you to shoot, but it would go a long way toward justifying your use of necessary deadly force against an assailant who did not have a weapon.

Posted by Marquezj16: This scenario happened in my area. As an older lady was getting in her car, a thief tried to snatch her purse. She drew her gun and the criminal ran away. The lady was not prosecuted.

Again, that would seem to constitute a clear disparity of force--elderly female victim, male attacker.

Two points:

1. You are describing a robber, not a "thief"; that is a very important distinction in the eyes of the law.
2. "Was not charged" is good, but is never final; one always remains potentially subject to criminal charges until and unless one has been (1) tried and acquitted or (2) pardoned. Further proceedings are most probably very unlikely here, but consider the recent case of the father and son vigilante team in Georgia: heroes one day, jailbirds the next.

I will draw if I feel like I am in "danger of bodily harm" and/or "to prevent a crime" from happening.

Here's what you should be thinking:

I will draw if I feel like have reason to believe that I am in imminent "danger of death or serious bodily harm" and/or "to prevent a serious crime" (depending upon the laws in my state) from happening.

That reason will be assessed and judged by others: investigators, the charging authority, and possibly, a jury.

Should they not agree, the charges will vary by state; something like aggravated assault is most likely.

Again, you have a little more leeway in at least a couple of states (namely, Minnesota and Texas).

[Frank Ettin]

Remember, intentionally hurting to killing another human is not taken lightly by our legal system (or by out fellow humans, for that matter). Even in those States whose laws may allow a use of lethal force to stop a crime from happening to be justified, it only applies to very serious crimes (typically violent felonies).

[Glenn Dee]

Great thread

IMO a huge component of this kind of a situation is being left out of the conversation. That is situational awareness. In my opinion this is what will save your bacon. Once the robber is upon you, and threatening you, your options are very limited. My experience is that most people who will threaten violence, will use that violence. Sometimes without warning. It's just as easy, and less problematic to strike someone with a lead pipe than it is to threaten the action and chance resistance. The take is the same. Most violent criminals I've met almost never consider getting caught, so the criminal penalties are of no consiquence to them. As another poster stated...most armed robbers, and muggers are professionals at their trade.

Again situational awareness is the best defense in a armed robbery as I see it. Second IMO is the choice of firearm, and method of carry. Carrying a service sized weapon can be a disadvantage. Once a person believe they may have been chosen as a victim for a mugging or robbery, with a smaller firearm they can choose to cover the subject their hand on their firearm in a pocket or purse. With some small revolvers they have the option to shoot through the pocket or purse. This tactic could be used with a larger handgun as well, but might require the use of a bag or newspaper or something else that would cover the handgun. I dont believe any of these technique could be considered brandishing, or menacing. There's even a name for them. It's called "Covering from the loaded position"

When to pull?.. My opinion is to maintain situational awareness, and to pull/cover as soon as the danger is percieved.

[totaldla]

Originally Posted by MLeake

I would modify that post, totaldla, in at least a couple ways.

First, I wouldn't say "somebody is going to die." That could be taken as premeditation to kill. I would say something more on the lines of "I would only draw my weapon if I were prepared to use it, and if I have to use it, I will shoot to stop."

I also wouldn't say a gun can't be used as a warning; there are times when that is legally and morally appropriate. The danger is in assuming that the warning will be all that is needed, or in drawing without being willing and ready to actually employ the weapon should that become necessary.

Bear in mind that statistics indicate 90% or so of defensive gun uses will end with no shots fired; the great majority of cases would not legally or morally justify shooting if the BG ceases his immediate threat, and so a mindset of "I will shoot if I draw" could cause serious problems in around 90% of cases.

That still means there are around 10% odds that if one draws, one will have to fire.

I disagree and here is why:

1. I'm not talking to anybody but myself. I have to have a clear line in my mind when I would use lethal force. The gun never comes out unless that line has been crossed. I can always choose to not shoot while I'm putting the front sight in place - but only because the situation has changed.
2. "Shoot to stop" is the politically correct way of dealing with the media. I must adopt the mindset that if I shoot, the other guy is gonna die - no exceptions because that is what a handgun does. If I can't accept that then I should be carrying pepper spray and/or a tazer.
3. Presenting a firearm doesn't magically scare away folks, but it does escalate the situation. I've worked with bad guys and very few are scared by looking down the barrel. But waving a gun around is a great way to get yourself killed - and the other guy is justified in doing it.
4. I'm not in the Cop business. Ever. Period. I don't arrest people. My gun is on my hip to save my life in a situation I can't otherwise get out of.

Don't confuse what you say to the Cops after a shooting with the mindset you must have if you are going to pull a weapon.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by totaldla: I have to have a clear line in my mind when I would use lethal force. The gun never comes out unless that line has been crossed.

Good. In the vast majority of jurisdictions, that is the threshold.

I can always choose to not shoot while I'm putting the front sight in place - but only because the situation has changed.

I do not believe that that differs from what MLeake articulated, which was that the mindset "I will shoot if I draw" can lead to serious consequences.

"Shoot to stop" is the politically correct way of dealing with the media.

Rather, it is the lawful objective of the shooter, civilian or LEO; that the other person may die at the scene or some time later is irrelevant to the defense of justification, but shooting after the threat has been stopped is not justified.

You should not be "dealing with the media" at any time after an encounter involving the use of force.

I must adopt the mindset that if I shoot, the other guy is gonna die - no exceptions because that is what a handgun does.

There are all kinds of exceptions. Handgun wounds are most often not fatal.

Presenting a firearm doesn't magically scare away folks, but it does escalate the situation. I've worked with bad guys and very few are scared by looking down the barrel. But waving a gun around is a great way to get yourself killed

Again, you are in agreement with MLeake: "The danger is in assuming that the warning will be all that is needed, or in drawing without being willing and ready to actually employ the weapon should that become necessary."

- and the other guy is justified in doing it.

Only if your presentation had been unlawful in the first place.

I'm not in the Cop business. Ever. Period. I don't arrest people. My gun is on my hip to save my life in a situation I can't otherwise get out of.

Words to live by.

[Brian Pfleuger]

While its obvious that someone who forces us to shoot may die and we must realize that likelihood, from the perspective of the defender what's matters is not what might happen but what our purpose is when pulling the trigger.

It is splitting hairs in some ways, to be sure, but it is an important distinction. Our intention is not based on kill or not kill. It is to end the threat. Whether the aggressor dies or not is not the point. They very well might die, they may very well not. Their blood is on their own hands, they are responsible for their fate.

We are not killers, we are "escapers". When our lives are on the line, escape is what matters. What happens to those who forced the action is not relevant, at that moment.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by totaldla

I'm not talking to anybody but myself....

No, here you're talking to everyone in the world with Internet access. And what you have written here has become a permanent record.

Originally Posted by totaldla

..."Shoot to stop" is the politically correct way of dealing with the media. I must adopt the mindset that if I shoot, the other guy is gonna die - no exceptions because that is what a handgun does...

[1] Shooting to stop is more than just "politically correct." It is the legal limit on your justified use of lethal force. If you have stopped the threat, you are not justified in continuing to use lethal force against the aggressor, even if he is still breathing. If your your mindset is that your aggressor is going to die, and you act on it and finish him off, you have committed murder.

[2] Killing someone is not what a handgun does. Most people who are shot survive.

[3] Yes, if you use your handgun in a way best calculated to effectively stop a threat, there is an excellent chance that the aggressor will die. But the desired result is that he stop, not that he dies.

[Glenn Dee]

THANK YOU FRANK ETTIN

Very, very well put sir...

[totaldla]

Originally Posted by Frank Ettin

No, here you're talking to everyone in the world with Internet access. And what you have written here has become a permanent record.

That's fine. Everything I've said is justifiable. But everything anybody says can be twisted in a civil suit - such is life. Carrying a gun is serious business and I believe it is important to think it through.

Originally Posted by Frank Ettin

[2] Killing someone is not what a handgun does. Most people who are shot survive.

[3] Yes, if you use your handgun in a way best calculated to effectively stop a threat, there is an excellent chance that the aggressor will die. But the desired result is that he stop, not that he dies.

I guess we should stop for a moment and consider what "lethal force" means, because there is a huge legal difference between lethal and non-lethal force. Every state considers employing a handgun to be lethal force and the outcome of such force is death. From a criminal law perspective, you have demonstrated intent to kill when you employed a firearm. If your shooting is ruled bad, you will be charged with crimes that declare that you intended to kill. I'm harping on this because "shoot to stop", a PC phrase, can mislead folks in a bad way. I totally agree with you that "coup de grace" is murder, and I don't want to split that hair, but I want folks to realize that when they shoot, it is either (a) justified self-defense or (b) a level of murder (serious prison time - think Zimmerman).

If somebody is uncomfortable with using lethal force, and I understand that perfectly, then they should be carrying pepper spray and/or a tazer. If you pepper spray somebody unjustfiably, you get charged with simple assault.

I don't think we are disagreeing at all. I just think we are dissecting the hairs many ways - and that is a good thing. Thanks for your input.

[briandg]

I live in missouri. Knowing some of the state laws won't change my reactions. I won't draw except as a last resort. I won't shoot except as a last resort. I will shoot until threat is ended.

What other choices are left other than those? More to the point, would I ever, even in my stupidest moments, say that maybe I overreacted? never.

I ended that by saying

hopefully, I won't be prosecuted.

I am going to analyze the situation carefully, act carefully and logically, do what I have to do, and hope for the best.

The very last thing I'm going to do is make things harder on myself by any inappropriate behavior.

[ClydeFrog]

My state is fairly clear on how it defines lethal force(deadly force).
In short, armed citizens can only use a firearm to defend themselves or others in events where their life or physical safety are in immediate jeporady.
Protecting personal property is NOT considered a valid reason to use lethal force. My state's officials also say firearms can only be used to kill a subject(deadly force). There is no; "shooting to wound" or "aiming for less lethal areas". If you draw a loaded firearm you need to be ready to use lethal force.
Now, don't mistake the lethal force standard to mean you'd stand over a felon who attacked you & shoot them 15-16 times. But if you draw a weapon, you should be fully ready to use it AND to justify your acts later on.
This is why skill training and being fully aware of your area's gun/use of force laws is so important.
As my state's Sec of State wrote in the Div of Licensing handbook for concealed carry holders; "Having a concealed carry license does NOT grant you license to use lethal force."
ClydeFrog

[Edward429451]

Understand that the enemy is not the enemy in his own eyes ;this may offer you an opportunity to make him your friend. If not, you can kill him without hate, and quickly. Only if it's necessary, though. Having a justified opportunity to shoot someone, doesn't mean you should. If there's the slightest chance that you can...I dunno, walk with God for a moment and find that path of no violence out, then you really win. But it's really up to the perp. He makes you pull the trigger or he opens a hole so to speak.

So far so good!

[MLeake]

totaldla, you may know what you mean by "shoot to kill," as in "shoot to stop, but realize that results could be lethal, and that regardless of outcome you have employed deadly force."

However, your audience does not know that, unless you so state it from the outset.

For one thing, that creates a potential hole that you might have to one day plug. Changing your wording could avoid creating that potential hole in the first place.

For another thing, a person who doesn't understand your full intent but who only catches the apparent meaning could take that as advice to always shoot to kill. I hear such things from people all the time, on the lines of "My concealed carry instructor told me that if I draw, I have to shoot, or I'll be arrested for brandishing." I doubt the instructor meant that, but that has been the takeaway for many new CCW carriers I've met, based on conversations with people I've met at different courses.

What I'm getting at is that what you look at as "splitting hairs," I look at as you creating potential problems for not only yourself, but also for poorly trained people who may stumble across your post.

[briandg]

Having a justified opportunity to shoot someone, doesn't mean you should.

That is as well said as it possibly could be.

To turn it around, the guy with the .45 aimed can also say "you don't have to do this. You can put down the knife and go home to your family."

There has to be at least a moment for soul searching and checking for alternative courses in most shootings. Ignore that opportunity at your own risk. With castle doctrine, I may never be prosecuted for shooting the drunken fool who comes through my front door threatening to beat me to death because I'm in his house, but in my own conciense, I'll be guilty.

Shooting a person isn't an opportunity, it has to be a well thought out absolute necessity for legal, conscientous, and "christian" reasons.

Obviously that matters very little to some people, but it should

.

[TheNocturnus]

Nevermind.

[Michael4yah]

Gunnut, do you live in New York? Lets all take a trip down memory lane. In the good ole days (and they were awfully good) when a person decided to be bad and rob someone he'd get away with it till he ran into someone who wouldnt give up his money. In that case one of three things would happen. The robber would give up and go away ( and that didnt happen often) or he would shoot/harm the victim, or the victim would shoot or kick the ever lovin crap out of him. You see sooner or later the bad guy would get whats coming to him and he'd stop or move on to greener pastures. But today with all this liberal bull crap being taught people (like dont fight back) the robber just stays where he's at because its become a target rich environment. The only way you can stop this is by standing up. If I was going to give the guy my wallet it would be a distraction that would give me time to draw and shoot him. Heave it to the side without being obvious, even say Im sorry or toss it at his feet. Most are so overconfident at that point that they take their eyes off you. Most havnt themselves decided whether or not they would shoot you. Its at this point that you have the maximum advantage. If you dont have the opportunity you can always wait till he turns to leave. Even catch up to him on the next block. Im old enough that Id rather shoot it out than be a victim. My kids are grown and its time for me to do what I can for society. There you have it, what say you?

[PawPaw]

In my state, lethal force can be used when the victim has reason to believe that he is in danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm, or in defense of another if the victim believes anther person is in danger of death or great bodily harm.

[Michael4yah]

Brian said..."Our intention is not based on kill or not kill. It is to end the threat."

Brian thats too broad a statement. Do you know how much training each marine has to go through to turn them into killers? A LOT. If you start putting vague wording into a do or die situation many may die that shouldnt. You cant draw a weapon and have all these "Less than lethal" ideas running through your head. It all happens in a split second and if your not aiming at center mass your wife may be planning the funeral instead of the state. I cant tell you how many times Ive heard people say that wounding an individual is a better choice etc.
2nd scenario, Are you going to draw and wait till you see if the other guy backs down. Thats mexican standoff insanity. I believe that if I'm facing an armed individual that is threatening me, Im going to kill him. The only caveat I would add to that is that if the person is turned in such a way that I would have complete advantage over him, Issue the command to freeze and allow him/her to toss the weapon. If that person turns without doing so I will kill them. I have been in gun point situations, Its all about control and a clear mental attitude.

[Brian Pfleuger]

You're missing the context of my statement.

The point is that you're not trying to kill OR *not* to kill.

You're trying to end the threat.

Whether the threat dies or doesn't is not relevant, at that moment.

Stopping the threat as fast as possible is the one and only goal.

The fact that stopping the threat necessitates shooting the threat in places that are very likely to kill the threat is a fact of life, not choice.

Target areas are targeted because they are the places that are most likely to force the threat to stop. They also happen to be the most likely places to cause death but death is not the point. Escape is the point.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Michael4yah: Issue the command to freeze and allow him/her to toss the weapon. If that person turns without doing so I will kill them.

Read Post # 34 as many times as it takes to understand it, and rethink you position.

Rethink your position, and document clearly that you have done so.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by totaldla

...Every state considers employing a handgun to be lethal force and the outcome of such force is death....

Yes, a handgun is lethal force. But the outcome of the use of lethal force is not necessarily death. In the law, lethal force is viewed as force likely to cause death or great bodily injury.

Effectively stopping an assailant who has manifest the intent and ability to cause you death or great bodily injury will most likely require that you use a degree of force likely to cause death or great bodily injury. But that is not the same thing as intending to kill.

Originally Posted by totaldla

...From a criminal law perspective, you have demonstrated intent to kill when you employed a firearm...

Provide some citation to proper legal authority for that contention. It is, in fact, not true.

Originally Posted by totaldla

...I'm harping on this because "shoot to stop", a PC phrase, can mislead folks in a bad way...

Not true. All established trainers and school talk in terms of shooting to stop.

Originally Posted by Michael4yah

...You cant draw a weapon and have all these "Less than lethal" ideas running through your head...

You have completely failed to understand the point. No one has suggested any "less than lethal" ideas. If one effectively employs a gun to stop a potentially lethal threat, the death of the assailant is a highly likely result. But that's not necessarily the intended result. The intended result is that the attack is stopped. If the attack stops and the assailant survives, your legitimate purpose has been fulfilled.

[Acerdog]

A Utah man answered this a couple of day's ago.


http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=2016...cid=featured-1


Man buys knife, stabs 2 at Salt Lake City store
Andrew Wittenberg and Lindsay Maxfield | posted Apr 26th - 7:45pm
A man stabbed two people at the Smith's Marketplace in downtown Salt Lake City. A bystander with a concealed carry permit challenged the alleged attacker and subdued him until police arrived.

[TexasJustice7]

FrankEtin: Yes, a handgun is lethal force. But the outcome of the use of lethal force is not necessarily death. In the law, lethal force is viewed as force likely to cause death or great bodily injury.

Effectively stopping an assailant who has manifest the intent and ability to cause you death or great bodily injury will most likely require that you use a degree of force likely to cause death or great bodily injury. But that is not the same thing as intending to kill.

And a handgun is good enough for me for home defense. I for one, don't feel the need for a shotgun, or an AR 15, etc. Great for those who want them. I make an assumption apparently that some do not. Anyone breaking into my home I do intend to stop them, if I am inside. I would not be checking to see if they were on drugs, drunk or otherwise impaired. But I don't need to go find a bigger gun to shoot them with if they are down. I listen to police scanners at night and the last two nights there were intruders at two locations nearby.