|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 30, 2011, 12:49 PM | #51 |
Junior member
Join Date: October 13, 2008
Location: Hermit's Peak
Posts: 623
|
MLeake- I grasp it just fine, thank you.
In this OP, a person has been warned to stop and has not. The gun has been drawn and the person still fails to stop. I will not make assumptions and bring other details into the situation. "What if's" do not apply because that would make the situation a guess. I will work with what I am provided in the OP, not bring in my own variables to suit my argument. With the above details, and those details alone, what would you think? |
July 30, 2011, 01:16 PM | #52 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
The person has been warned, I get that.
What I don't get is the inherent threat that justifies a warning. A warning without justification is just a bunch of hot air. You can warn me to stay away from you on public land; I'll probably choose to do so, since I don't need the hassle. I'll probably think you are a bit off, honestly. Then again, I have no requirement to comply with your desire for me to stay away. Sad though it may be, I can go where I like on public land. So can the OP's hypothetical stranger. Maybe the woman in the OP's hypothetical is by the stranger's long-time favorite fishing spot. And, if somebody warned me off public land, I'd probably call the police about it. Note: Last time I was approached by a stranger, in a similar scenario (although I am a 6', 200lb martial artist, and I was with friends, so that changes things a bit), it turned out our GPS was off - or our interpretation of its chart was - and we were 100 yards into somebody's private property. The stranger who approached was the land owner. Luckily, he was friendly about it. We ended up giving him a lift back to his lodge in my friend's airboat. Now, the OP is making this scenario about a lone female, who encounters a male who is acting strangely. That ups the ante a bit. My first bit of advice would be, if you are a lone female who is not comfortable with the idea of encountering strangers in the woods - don't go into the woods (or to the lake) by yourself. The buddy system would make the OP's encounter significantly less nerve-wracking. And AH.74, you ARE making assumptions, based on the OP's details, and his details alone. You are assuming that behavior you don't understand automatically construes a threat. |
July 30, 2011, 02:11 PM | #53 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
Quote:
Quote:
Yes, I am wary of male strangers, whether I'm in town or in the country. The reality is that in principle, any full-grown man is -- potentially -- an "inherent threat" to a woman, for the reasons I gave in my post above. For me, and for many other women, going armed is a huge equalizer: it means that we can exercise our right to "go where we like on public land," and elsewhere, in the knowledge that we can protect ourselves if necessary, without being dependent on someone else to "take care" of us. (Trust me... that dependence is a demeaning thing for an autonomous adult.) But -- and this should be obvious to everyone here -- a couple of things go along with choosing to go armed, no matter who one is: exercising one's judgment about who is and isn't likely to be a genuine threat, and being willing to act on that judgment. And most men are not in fact threats. A couple of examples: I'm a birder, in a not very serious way, and sometimes, after work, I like to go off on my own to local birding spots around the city, some of which are fairly isolated. So I was out walking one evening in a birding "hotspot," and saw a guy sort of meandering down the trail toward me, and he had a camera and a big pair of binoculars slung around his neck. OK, that's pretty much a zero threat, as far as I'm concerned -- we passed on the trail, exchanged a few words, went on our different ways. Another day, in a different place, I pulled into the parking area and saw two young guys on the viewing deck at the end of the trail from the lot. No binos... they were just sort of hanging out. So I said to myself, "Self... let's wait in the car and give them five minutes, and if they leave, great, if not, maybe we'll go somewhere else -- no point courting trouble here." A couple of minutes later they came back up the trail to the lot, and I got the dog out of the back and went on with my walk. I will be darned if I'm going to deny myself the pleasure of outings like that, just because I might meet someone who sets off alarms. In the OP's scenario, the approaching stranger has already failed to respond when told to stop -- if he's well-intentioned, perhaps on his way to a favorite fishing spot, why wouldn't he respond? At that point, my internal threat index goes way up: either his intentions aren't friendly or there's something else the matter with him. I'm not about to respond with lethal force at that point, but protecting myself will be a priority.
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. Last edited by Evan Thomas; July 30, 2011 at 02:16 PM. |
||
July 30, 2011, 02:17 PM | #54 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Vanya, I didn't say you can't go where you want. I said, if you are likely to be uncomfortable around strangers, then it might be a good idea to take a buddy with you. There's no contradiction, whatsoever, as I'm not talking about your right to go alone, just the possible wisdom of going with company.
Once again, on what grounds do you tell the guy to stop approaching? On what grounds, other than courtesy, should he comply? You are talking about a public spot, albeit a deserted one. Now, would I close on a woman I don't know, in that manner? No. Would I find it odd that a man would act that way? Yes. But the person could be drunk (which could lead to other threatening behaviors, granted); mentally not right (ditto); disoriented due to a medical condition (ever see a diabetic have an insulin reaction or go into hypoglycemia?); deaf/mute (I have a deaf/mute cousin, but she's female; if she needed help she'd approach and would not hear your warning); etc. So, again, be ready to deal with a problem but drawing may still be inappropriate. Edit: The suggestion to move, and see if he tracks you, is not a bad one. Also, in case of a deaf person, or for that matter a foreign, non-English speaker, putting your hand out in a "STOP" motion might also get some attention, where words have failed. Murphy can really suck; while odds of a guy being a potential attacker are higher, it would suck to shoot a lost Chinese guy with Down's Syndrome who'd wandered off from his tour group... Last edited by MLeake; July 30, 2011 at 02:26 PM. |
July 30, 2011, 03:53 PM | #55 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
Sorry, but I do think there is a contradiction here. You're not telling me not to go -- but you are telling me how it is and isn't OK for me to go. I have every right to go where I want, as I want, on public land, just as you do. If I'm (with reason) a bit wary of strangers, and being armed lets me be comfortable alone, given that level of wariness, why should my going alone be a problem?
Quote:
One can bring up all the same hypotheticals about deaf people, non-English-speakers, people having medical crises, etc. in the context of pumping gas. So what is so different about a situation in which someone is fishing in an isolated area? Why is it OK to give a verbal challenge in one situation, but not in the other? And why is it OK to be prepared to react to a threat with force if you're in a gas station, but it's not OK in the woods? Yes -- in both (public!) places, the approaching person should comply, both out of courtesy and out of some sense of self-preservation... If I tell someone approaching me to stop, I will be doing it in a way that makes it clear that not stopping may have consequences. I will also be moving away if I can -- but if I'm wearing waders and up to my thighs in a lake, I'm going to be a bit limited that way. And note, please, that I was quite clear in my first post that I'd be drawing the pepper spray first, and that the gun, if any, would be a backup if the pepper spray was ineffective... I'm not among those who'd draw a gun as a first response in this situation.
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. Last edited by Evan Thomas; July 30, 2011 at 04:22 PM. |
|
July 31, 2011, 09:53 AM | #56 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 20, 2000
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
Posts: 1,198
|
I'd ask him how the fish were biting. Seriously.
|
July 31, 2011, 03:24 PM | #57 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Vanya, one could bring up all those hypotheticals about pumping gas.
And please show me when I've ever said it would be a good idea to draw on somebody in one of those scenarios. I think I've pretty consistently said, use body language, use maneuver, and be ready to escalate if necessary. I've also quite frequently advocated training in one of the martial arts which focuses on escapes and evasion, and allows time to draw a weapon if things catch one off guard. So, no, I'm not being inconsistent. And I'm not telling you what's OK or not OK. If you notice what I said, it wasn't that "women should always have escorts." It was more on the lines of "women who feel uncomfortable when encountering strangers should consider bringing buddies along." The same could be said for men. If situations make one fearful, when alone, one probably should avoid going into those situations alone. So my comments weren't based on gender, per se, but on attitudes and comfort levels. In this instance, the subject for the OP was a female, so I used "women." If his subject had been a small man, an infirm person, whatever, my basic take on it would have remained the same. |
July 31, 2011, 05:41 PM | #58 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
MLeake, I don't think you and I are very far apart in terms of how one should act in the scenario posed in the OP. Neither of us thinks that the situation, as described, warrants drawing a gun.
Quote:
Quote:
Perhaps it needs to be spelled out, obvious as it seems, that I'd also be evaluating the man's appearance and body language for signs of his physical and mental status: Is he dishevelled, stumbling, sweating, looking disoriented? Is he, fergawdsake, carrying fishing gear? If he is, I'm probably not going to be too worried. That was the point of the examples I gave in my next post: when I encounter someone I don't know, whether in the backcountry, on a city street, or in the sort of "in-between" area I was describing, it's automatic for me to look at all sorts of cues in deciding whether someone is a potential, and I stress potential, threat. In the situation as given, I'm not going to let him get within reach until I have some notion of what's going on with him. I don't meet the world with the assumption that I need to fear everyone I meet -- rather the opposite, in fact. That doesn't change the fact that as a middle-aged woman, I'm aware that pretty well any able-bodied man is strong enough to overpower me physically; he doesn't have to be armed to be a threat. That's just how it is, and it is a reason for me to be, not fearful, but careful. I pay attention to whatever cues a stranger is giving me, especially if I'm alone, and I carry whatever means of protection makes me comfortable. I'd add that I actually like being alone, and feel even safer in the backcountry than I do around the city -- the odds are that anyone I meet in the mountains, or on the river, is there for pretty much the same purposes I am. A "buddy system" would be a severely unattractive alternative. Can't see why I'd want to curtail my freedom that way...
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. |
||
July 31, 2011, 05:49 PM | #59 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 25, 2006
Posts: 1,819
|
If he is not carrying a weapon and or threatening... you guys would just shoot him? why not just whip him w/the fly rod? I can't see killing a man, or even drawing a weapon because a person walks up to you. What if he was a local Mental health case, intoxicated or a just a well intentioned person who wants to "spread the good word"? The guy could have been lost or injured. If there is no visible or verbal threat, why draw the gun to begin with?
|
July 31, 2011, 06:06 PM | #60 | |
Junior member
Join Date: March 1, 2006
Location: Tampa,Fl
Posts: 4,000
|
In this scenario....................
Quote:
Unless you are confident that you can defeat this threat with hand to hand should he begin an attack then you simply cannot allow him to get close while open carrying. At this point Ability, Opportunity, and Intent are covered. Ability because you have decided that you cannot take them hand to hand. Opportunity because he is close enough to use his death or great bodily injury producing weapons (hands and feet). Intent because you repeatedly demanded he stop and retreated and drew your firearm and he still kept coming. I believe that I would be able to articulate to a jury that I was in fear of death or grave bodily injury from a stranger who refused commands at gunpoint to leave me alone even though they were unarmed and not vocally announcing intent. |
|
July 31, 2011, 06:23 PM | #61 | |
Junior member
Join Date: March 1, 2006
Location: Tampa,Fl
Posts: 4,000
|
Quote:
This isn't a city sidewalk where people have a reason to walk past you. This is the middle of nowhere. Someone purposely looking to make contact with you. You are alone. You are openly armed. Your only weakness at this point is allowing an unknown to get close enough to use his only visible weapons, his hands and feet. Not challenging them even politely is a huge mistake. Allowing them within arms reach is worst yet. You trust and we verify. Two different philosophy's. Our way is undeniably safer. |
|
August 1, 2011, 08:14 AM | #62 | ||
Junior member
Join Date: October 13, 2008
Location: Hermit's Peak
Posts: 623
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
August 1, 2011, 08:38 AM | #63 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 2,259
|
Quote:
|
|
August 1, 2011, 08:39 AM | #64 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
AH.74, the odds of encountering disoriented people in the woods are actually about as high as those of encountering an assailant in the woods.
People get lost and dehydrated, or suffer medical emergencies exponentially more often than people get attacked in the great outdoors. That's not to say that people don't get attacked; they do. I can think of seven or eight murders in the last five years. But look how many search and rescue efforts have happened in that same timeframe. Franky, your hypotheticals are the ridiculous ones. |
August 1, 2011, 08:45 AM | #65 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 2,259
|
Quote:
|
|
August 1, 2011, 08:46 AM | #66 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
And still (to AH.74) you are assuming that drawing in the first place was justified. Have fun with that one, unless you can establish that you took very positive steps to avoid having to do so.
(IE, not just saying, "Stay back, foul creature of the night!" but also trying to retreat, move off-line, use non-verbal commands, etc.) Drawing when there is a threat is not brandishing; drawing when there has not been a credible threat is brandishing, and possibly assault. I'm not saying the situation might not justify a draw, but the OP (and several others) are suggesting drawing without really justifying the draw; they (and you, AH.74) are then using the fact of that bogus draw, and that the guy is closing even though the gun is now drawn, to support the validity of a shooting. Circular logic, at best. |
August 1, 2011, 11:47 AM | #67 |
Junior member
Join Date: March 1, 2006
Location: Tampa,Fl
Posts: 4,000
|
In the middle of nowhere and a stranger makes a b line for your position and without a kind word continues to close and you ask them to stop and they ignore you without a kind word...........ALL THIS AND YOU ARE OPENLY ARMED, I mean what are you guys concerned with. If this isn't a threat then why not speak? Why ignore commands to stop in the face of a firearm?
Not speaking causes me to fear the unknown intent of a man unwilling to engage in talk. Ignoring my initial commands to stop make me fear that the mans intent is bad. Ignoring any commands to stop while retreating and after the draw confirm bad intent for me. My answers to these questions are why I retreat, draw, point, then fire with commands to stop or else between steps. |
August 1, 2011, 01:23 PM | #68 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 24, 2010
Location: Spring, TX
Posts: 1,552
|
Please explain to me how running is a huge gamble?
"Your honor I shot him because he was maniacally walking is a guaranteed LOL in my book" You still have fists you know. If he comes within 7 and doesn't heed verbal warning punch them right in their pie hole. If he doesn't go down or really starts a struggle well I hope you are carrying condition 1. If they are a normal human being they will call the authorities after being punched and then you can sort it all out. I actually think you would have a pretty strong case for punching them. You are out in the wilderness with several hundred feet of space the person could have walked around you yet chose to walk past you within inches and didn't stop when you asked them to. If I were on a jury I would prob side with the puncher, not the punchee. |
August 1, 2011, 01:40 PM | #69 | |
Junior member
Join Date: March 1, 2006
Location: Tampa,Fl
Posts: 4,000
|
Quote:
To correct your statement to the judge it should be your Honor I shot him because I was in fear for my life after he ignored several verbal attempts I made to stop him and he chased after me knowing I was armed. When I could no longer maintain the distance I was forced to shoot fearing he would harm me. I did all possible to avoid it including retreat. To me no sane "innocent" man would ignore multiple warnings to stop and even advance on someone wielding deadly force unless the intent was to inflict deadly force IMO. |
|
August 1, 2011, 01:43 PM | #70 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 2,259
|
This is what makes it humorous. You're going to punch someone for getting within 7 yards of you on public land at a lake, a public lake?
Under what color of authority do you have to shoot them, draw on them, punch them in the kisser, or even shout some sort of warning at them? The more this hypotehtical is discussed, the more cooky its starting to sound. |
August 1, 2011, 01:54 PM | #71 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 6,079
|
Quote:
|
|
August 1, 2011, 02:17 PM | #72 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 3, 2011
Location: Upstate,New york
Posts: 308
|
I would carry a less lethal option like mace and use that first then if the attack continuos lethal is an appropriate option.
|
August 1, 2011, 02:37 PM | #73 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
It's not "kooky" (I think that's what you meant ), it's just... difficult.
The scenario in the OP is that someone continues to approach you after being told repeatedly to stop. He doesn't appear to be armed, but he keeps walking rapidly toward you without responding to your words or to your gestures. You don't need any "color of authority" to call out: "Hi, can I help you? What do you want?" But if someone doesn't answer such a hail and keeps coming even when you then ask him to stop, how do you know that he's NOT a threat? He hasn't shown a weapon, but you don't know that he's unarmed. The rapid, purposeful walking suggests that he's able-bodied and neither blind nor disoriented. Yes, he could be deaf, but what deaf person doesn't understand that a hand raised palm-out means "Stop!" His failure to respond to your words and gestures isn't normal behavior, and that ought to set your alarm bells off. It's true that you don't know whether he intends to attack you or if he's mentally disabled or disturbed, on drugs, or just a complete social misfit who has never learned that when someone asks what you want, it's polite to answer. Some, such as MLeake and ripnbst, are apparently confident enough of their hand-to-hand skills to let him get close. Others of us don't think that's a good idea -- hands and feet can injure or kill, and it's possible that he is carrying some sort of weapon. I do think it's very improbable that someone would approach in this way without showing some signs of what was going on... But, that said, I think the best one can say about a scenario like this is that it makes a good argument for having some form of defense short of lethal force. Using pepper spray before drawing a gun makes sense to me in such a situation.
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. |
August 1, 2011, 03:18 PM | #74 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 6,079
|
Quote:
This is supposed to be an evaluation of a scenario. Already a hypothetical scenario of this specificity is somewhat pointless as it would have a zillion other factors that can't be imagined. Consequently, all those blanks are filled in by members who are on a gun forum.... So naturally this "neutral" situation is already biased toward an issue of attack and defence. Nothing in the OP talks about an attack, though. Except the title, that is. There is the word assailant is in bold letters. So again, the perspective is biased yet more.. That is "kooky". Others have mooted that this individual could simply be in distress. If I had to fill in some of the blanks of this situation, given the environment, that would seem the more likely explanation. Yet so many are chomping at the bit to pull a gun. For me that too is "kooky". My 2p |
|
August 1, 2011, 04:25 PM | #75 | ||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
You can help us by expanding upon the following:
Perhaps than we will be able to come up with an answer to this from zincwarrior: Quote:
Last edited by OldMarksman; August 1, 2011 at 04:34 PM. |
||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|