Close call today

[SansSouci]

Hey Pond,

How would you know when a threat is no longer a threat?

[SansSouci]

TimSr

Situational awareness does not preclude necessity of a gun. What it does is provide us with alert that appropriate reaction might be necessary.

[zincwarrior]

Quote:
The gun wasn't out; it was merely ready to draw if it becomes necessary. Which is okay and legal. Drawing it at that point would've been illegal.
Wearing a hoodie and sticking your head into a stranger's car asking for money is a very aggressive act. Personally, I would have punched him (because I can and can inflict considerable pain), and I might have drawn my gun if I couldn't pound on him enough to get him to leave. This is one instance where I could see drawing my gun, give a loud warning and not shoot if at all possible. The reason is because, while he has his head in your car, you really do have a bit more control over the situation; at least until you see him reach for a knife or gun, or try and open your door.

To play Devil's advocate, on what legal basis are you justified in committing battery, let alone threatening with a deadly weapon?

[SansSouci]

zinc,

The totality of circumstances with application of the reasonable man standard would determine whether a person is exposed to arrest and prosecution.

If one can articulate reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily injury, one ought to be immune.

[TunnelRat]

Your post is very false dichotomy. Yours represents a person voluntarily moving among others. The other is allowing an unknown person to invade personal space of another.

The only point at which the man in the hoodie entered the OP's personal space was when he stuck his head in the car. She was parked in the lot of a Sonic. The lot itself is not her personal space and people walk through the parking lots of restaurants, chain and otherwise. When you are driving around in a car you are very much still in the public voluntarily and people can be as close to you as walking directly next to your car, at a distance of inches from you. You're right that the car affords you a larger bubble of personal space, but I disagree that it's completely different from the other situations I brought up. In this instance and others people can be close enough to touch you, which seemed to be your benchmark.

While I am not paranoid, I do pay attention to my environments. If I see potential threats, I avoid them.

I never called you paranoid nor do I think that people that try to maintain situational awareness are paranoid. What I did was point out the limitations of living in a society where we daily interact with other people. The very nature of being in that society means that people are within striking distance of you. Until those same people do something to let you know of their intentions, they could be completely benign or they could be malicious. There are plenty of examples of robberies and assaults where the aggressor was able to maintain the element of surprise. I'm not saying it's a lost cause and to just give up on being situationally aware; I'm saying there will always remain the possibility of being surprised.

The reality, though, is you've assuredly postured yourself in this thread and will seek most tenuous rhetoric in effort to defend it.

What I've expressed in this thread is what I have learned and what I believe. Others on this thread have expressed similar sentiments, nor is anything I've said that divergent from the instruction anyone could receive from a number of self defense academies or disciplines. If that meets your definition of posturing, there's nothing more I can say along those lines.

[zincwarrior]

I know the legal standard. I'm trying to ascertain what case law supports you committing felony battery and potentially felony attempted murder because someone stuck their head in the window without threatening you.

Again, as Devil's Advocate, based on what the OP stated and the response of beating them or putting a gun in their face would like have resulting in 1. a nice state prison stay; and 2. revocation of any licensing to carry said firearm.

[SansSouci]

Hi Tunnel Rat,

It might just be that our exposures to tactical training is incongruent. Who knows? Maybe yours was better than mine.

BTW, I have a friend who has had to attend a CCW "course" in order to receive his permit. What he wasn't taught was disconcerting.

There is only one sure way of surviving a gunfight: DON'T GET IN ONE.

[SansSouci]

Hi zinc,

Socratic debate is a good thing.

I know how I was trained. I know muscle memory.

Never allow a bad guy to control an outcome. That means I would never surrender a tactical advantage to a bad guy whom I could articulate is a bad guy. While the "solicitor" probably committed no crime, based upon my training and expertise, I probably could have articulated reasonable suspicion that a crime was likely to occur.

I could go to a Angels baseball game with tens of thousands of fans, none of whom would arouse my suspicion. However, the guy with prison tats who appears suspicious would seize my attention. My next step would be to alert an Anaheim cop assigned to the game. He'd make contact and complete an FI on the guy.

[Grizz12]

I believe your situational awareness, body language and tone of voice is what sent him running. You expressed a level of confidence he did not expect to see

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by SansSouci

Hi Tunnel Rat,



It might just be that our exposures to tactical training is incongruent. Who knows? Maybe yours was better than mine.



BTW, I have a friend who has had to attend a CCW "course" in order to receive his permit. What he wasn't taught was disconcerting.



There is only one sure way of surviving a gunfight: DON'T GET IN ONE.

I make no claims that one person's experience is better or worse than another's. What I learned wasn't from a short CCW course by a local person to meet a permit requirement (I assume your use of quotation marks is meant to convey derision). What I learned was the result of a half dozen courses at the SIG Sauer Academy and hopefully more this year. You're free to look up the credentials of that establishment and judge for yourself.

[Branko]

Of course it's agressive. Using force to get his head out of the car would be certainly normal around here, but I kind of doubt it that the guy would have done it versus someone who looks like they can punch them hard enough. The way I see it, it was most likely a run up for a crime, the guy decided that there were easier victims around and went away. All in all, unpleasant situation, but nothing came out of it, fortunately.

It's hard to legally justify, as a civillian, pulling out your gun at this point. If caught, it would likely lead to serious legal trouble, because the required standard for pulling out the gun is just as strict as it is for using it. If you're a cop, you play by different rules. Civillians play by different rules, and I must add, stricter rules.

[zincwarrior]

I know how I was trained. I know muscle memory.

Very important but not relevant. Muscle memory will not save you from life imprisonment if you make the wrong decision.

Never allow a bad guy to control an outcome. That means I would never surrender a tactical advantage to a bad guy whom I could articulate is a bad guy

Very important but again, legally not relevant. The only thing that matters is if it were reasonable. Physically assaulting someone or threatening them with a firearm when they have not verbally or physically threatened you is going to be an interesting hill to climb legally. Dog help you if that really was a high school student asking for a donation for a school organization. Not only are you going to go rocketing to jail, but that family is going to sue the pants off you (alternatively the father is going to reciprocate but advocating illegality is not condoned on this board).

. While the "solicitor" probably committed no crime,

They actually committed no crime. Indeed panhandling has ruled constitutional multiple times.

based upon my training and expertise, I probably could have articulated reasonable suspicion that a crime was likely to occur.

What legal training is that again? What review of previous case law supports this conclusion?

I could go to a Angels baseball game with tens of thousands of fans, none of whom would arouse my suspicion. However, the guy with prison tats who appears suspicious would seize my attention.

And pulling a gun and putting it in his face means you go to jail.

My next step would be to alert an Anaheim cop assigned to the game.

Don’t worry, you’d already be on the ground handcuffs or likely shot given you just pulled a gun at a public sporting event.

Again I playing Devil’s Advocate here and this is in response to the poster who stated they would have battered or drawn on the other party. That’s a criminally bad idea.

[K_Mac]

Reasonable fear is the standard. Convincing a prosecutor and/or jury is the challenge if a reasonable case can be made that one's actions were excessive or unnecessary in a "self defense" situation. My point is carrying a gun is our right as free men, but it comes with enormous responsibility. Exchanging words or blows with some knothead in the Sonic parking lot is one thing, doing it while armed is another. I completely agree that situational awareness is not living in fear, but it does require us to pay close attention and to walk or run from dangerous confrontation when possible. For some of us, including myself, this is not easy. Cut me off in traffic and/or make obscene gestures and I will want to teach you some manners, but I will not be put in a spot where someone can end up dead because I lost my temper.

We all would like to have 'one size fits all' solutions to staying safe in an unsafe world. Unfortunately that just ain't the way life works.

[TimSr]

Dog help you if that really was a high school student asking for a donation for a school organization.

His obvious misrepresentation of who he was, and why he was there was the first clue he was up to no good. Do you ever factor behavior into situational awareness?

In my community, not only are students banned from approaching strangers in cars to solicit donations, but they are banned from going door to door as well. When a stranger's first words to me are an obvious lie, my spidy senses start tingling.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by TimSr

His obvious misrepresentation of who he was, and why he was there was the first clue he was up to no good. Do you ever factor behavior into situational awareness?



In my community, not only are students banned from approaching strangers in cars to solicit donations, but they are banned from going door to door as well. When a stranger's first words to me are an obvious lie, my spidy senses start tingling.

Are you sure that's true of the OP's community however? That seems dependent on where you are. I get solicitors at my door on a bi-weekly basis. The high school kids come by every so often for fundraisers as well. Not to mention the gypsies looking to trade labor for cash.

[zincwarrior]

In my community, not only are students banned from approaching strangers in cars to solicit donations, but they are banned from going door to door as well. When a stranger's first words to me are an obvious lie, my spidy senses start tingling.

1. Legally panhandling is constitutionally protected. Ask the hobos in San Fran.
2. The post I was responding to, the poster went far beyond "spidy senses" to phyically assaulting or drawing on the individual.

The practice you describe is being prudent. The other is being feloniously criminal.

[Tactical Jackalope]

I could go to a Angels baseball game with tens of thousands of fans, none of whom would arouse my suspicion. However, the guy with prison tats who appears suspicious would seize my attention. My next step would be to alert an Anaheim cop assigned to the game. He'd make contact and complete an FI on the guy.

I have tattoos visible on my person when I'm wearing a T-shirt. You'd call the police to come and check me out because of this? Weird.


OP, I do not recommend anymore purse carry. Lots of potential fumbling around, something dislodging the safety, pulling the trigger, holster slipping away, someone could snatch it, etc.

The P938 is relatively small and slim. A nice appendix carry position should serve you well. It also won't hinder you from drawing your weapon while buckled in.

I used to work with Gabby Franco at a local range here in Miami, Florida. She would put a lot of women here at ease with her female perspective on things. It's like a man telling a woman the best course of action given the details of their pregnancy. It just doesn't seem to resonate well with most women. Granted, this is different. But someone like my ex-girlfriend, preferred instruction from a female and responded well to her.

So I recommend a good class from someone you trust or a reputable female instructor. They're tell you the same thing. Carrying on person means you're armed. Carrying in your glove box or purse, doesn't mean you are armed. it means you have a weapon in close proximity. Two different things.

Kathy Jackson (pax) on this forum also carries her guns from the moment she wakes up, until she falls asleep. As do I. Which could be 15-20 hours.

[Pond, James Pond]

Hey Pond,

How would you know when a threat is no longer a threat?

An array of subtle signs such as the fact they are no longer attacking me....

[TimSr]

Are you sure that's true of the OP's community however? That seems dependent on where you are. I get solicitors at my door on a bi-weekly basis. The high school kids come by every so often for fundraisers as well. Not to mention the gypsies looking to trade labor for cash.

No, I'm not. Not too many incorporated towns and cities that don't have some version of the Green River Ordinance. Sounds like yours needs one.

Our state's schools have become pretty sensitive to the liability issues of sending children out to solicit money from strangers, and most have a strict policy of warning against it. The kids are supposed to hit up relatives and friends, or send the parents into their workplace. They rarely ask for donations. They sell you a $1 candy bar for $4 or something. Yeah, things were different when I was kid. Maybe some schools still tell kids to panhandle strangers in vehicles at drive up eateries, but if I ran into one of them, I'd be at the next school board meeting.

[TunnelRat]

No, I'm not. Not too many incorporated towns and cities that don't have some version of the Green River Ordinance. Sounds like yours needs one.

We are certainly incorporated, I don't live in township 442 It doesn't bother me to be honest. With the the kids it's only the high school students by themselves and the other kids are always with parents. I get a lot of Jehovah's Witnesses for some reason, but they're typically nice enough. The gypsies have been useful at times to clear out land.

Now I fully agree that a kid coming up to my actual car while parked at a Sonic would be really odd. My point was merely the laws can vary depending on where you are and it's easy to forget that.

[SansSouci]

zinc,

What you think is immaterial. What I can articulate is. So is my training and expertise, which would trigger muscle memory. What you might think is insignificant might indicate extreme danger to me; e.g., prison tats that indicate a very dangerous person. Extensive exposure to dirt bags that would just as soon kill you as look at you is extremely significant. You might have no clue that you're in presence of a Aryan Brotherhood member while I might have my hand on my gun, assuming I'm carrying one.

You might want peruse a copy of the California Peace Officer's Legal Sourcebook published by the CA AG's office. I'm not sure of Texas law, but I do know CA substantive and adjective law.

Here's reality: one good guy vs. one bad guy = bad odds for the good guy. A good guy would probably have no clue whether a bad guy has his buddies nearby. Summoning help might be a prayer. A good guy will probably have limited ammo. Not even cops wear their vests off duty. One good guy might be as good as it will get in presence of at least one bad guy.

I'd much rather be a live witness than a dead hero. Viewing autopsies will solidify this concept.

Most people will have no clue that there's a very dangerous person sitting next to then in a restaurant. However, because of my training and expertise, I might, which would alert me to danger. And I would call local cops. All cops want to know if there're felons within their beats.

Some dozen years ago I was in a grocery store check out line. The store was in a rural So Cal community. Suddenly I noticed two Aryan Brotherhood members standing in line immediately in front of me. If they knew what I did for a living, they'd have tried to kill me. To you, they'd probably have been just two more customers. My training and expertise told me that they were murderers. Aryan Brotherhood gangsters train to murder, and they're damned good at it. Thank God that they left w/o incident.

Always avoid. Immediately contact local cops. Do not engage unless your life is in imminent danger (to include family members' lives).

99.9% of time, I'm unarmed. I'm exempt from CA's CCW laws, so I can carry if I so desire. But I don't. I do take criticism for my complacency from my retired brethren. Who knows, maybe I might start carrying a gun. Just because I'm retired doesn't mean AB or other serious gang members wouldn't try to kill me. But I do know that carrying a P-229 is like having a little kid with me. I have to have 100% attention on my gun at all times lest someone sees it or, worse, a bad guy tries to take it from me. And yes, AB members do practice gun takeaway tactics. I've seen the training films.

If you see suspicious activity, it's always wise to call cops before bad guys have chance to do bad things.

BTW, where a good guy pulls a gun is immaterial. That he's justified doing so is. Were I at Disneyland and a pedophile tried to kidnap a child, assuming I had a gun, it would be pointed at him. God help the suspect should he grab a child victim. Anaheim PD would expect me to protect a child. A pedophile attempting to kidnap a child is a very, very serious crime that too often leads to murder of the victim. Again, I'd be relying upon my training and expertise, which is significant. Were you to ask me, I'd say it's just as significant to Texas cops.

Jus' sayin'...

[SansSouci]

Constantine,

Do you have visible prison tats? You know, the kind that inmates put on each other while they're wallowing away hours in prison cells.

Weird, very weird.

[SansSouci]

Hey Pond,

How would you know a bad guy's intention? You know, like like getting ready to put more rounds on you while he's on his back with a few beats of his heart keeping him from his next life.

A bad guy with his heart destroyed can live 8 seconds, more than long enough to reduce you to ambient temperature, which ain't a good thing.

Why would you suppose that cops are trained to shoot and keep shooting until bad guys trying to murder them stop moving? Do you know of a single case where a cop was prosecuted for following his training?

[K_Mac]

SansSouci you seem to believe that identifying bad guys can be done based on a variety of external signs. For most of us it is not so straightforward. Knowing the amount of force necessary to end the threat is not as simple for most of us as it seems to be for you either. I submit that the tatted up kid may not be as dangerous as the middle aged guy next to you at the car wash or that shooting until an attacker stops MOVING is not sound advice for most civilians or situations.

I have a couple of friends in law enforcement and a couple more in corrections. They all have a tendency to see through a different lense than most of the rest of us. The rules and responsibilities for sworn officers are different than for civilians.

[Limnophile]

I have tattoos visible on my person when I'm wearing a T-shirt. You'd call the police to come and check me out because of this? Weird.

I'd just call the fashion police.

OP, I do not recommend anymore purse carry. Lots of potential fumbling around, something dislodging the safety, pulling the trigger, holster slipping away, someone could snatch it, etc.

She does not purse carry. Her gun was residing in an empty purse pocket while in her car so as to be readily accessible. You can find car seat pouches that function the same way.

The P938 is relatively small and slim. A nice appendix carry position should serve you well. It also won't hinder you from drawing your weapon while buckled in.

Given that appendix carry does not magically eliminate the potential for fumbling around you express concern about above, it's absurd to carry in a way that has the muzzle covering a femoral artery. "Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy!"--Jeff Cooper.

Reasonable fear is the standard. Convincing a prosecutor and/or jury is the challenge if a reasonable case can be made that one's actions were excessive or unnecessary in a "self defense" situation.

"I feared for my life!" is about the only valid response after a DGU, but the key question then becomes whether that level of force was appropriate to the actual threat. If someone sticks his head uninvited into the open window of my car, I think it is reasonable to shove his head out, but to punch him is likely inappropriate in most cases, and brandishing a weapon is less likely to be justified. If the guy's hands intrude inside my car, the threat is elevated enough to justify more aggressive application of force.

If I felt the need to shove a guy's head out of my driver's side window, I'd want to use my right hand. As a woman, shoving is not likely to be an effective action; even if it was, her right hand was on her pocketed pistol. I think she chose wisely.