The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old July 30, 2011, 12:49 PM   #51
AH.74
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?
AH.74 is offline  
Old July 30, 2011, 01:16 PM   #52
MLeake
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.
MLeake is offline  
Old July 30, 2011, 02:11 PM   #53
Evan Thomas
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mleake
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.
Quote:
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.
MLeake, do you not see the contradiction here? You're proclaiming your right to go where you like on public land, but you're telling me that I'm wrong to do so -- at least if I'm by myself.

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.
Evan Thomas is offline  
Old July 30, 2011, 02:17 PM   #54
MLeake
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.
MLeake is offline  
Old July 30, 2011, 03:53 PM   #55
Evan Thomas
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:
Originally Posted by MLeake
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.
Put this in another context, which comes up here very regularly: you're pumping gas, and a man approaches you. In threads where this is the scenario, I can't recall anyone ever disagreeing with the idea that it's OK to issue some sort of verbal challenge as a first response. This might start with "What do you want? Can I help you?" -- But if the man keeps coming, telling him "Stop there! Don't come closer!" -- yes, with a hand gesture (see my first post on this) -- ought to be the immediate next step, along with moving away, putting the car between you, etc. And at some point in this sequence, it's reasonable to produce a weapon. Less so if you're a 200# martial arts master, more so if you're a 110# woman, martial arts master or not.

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.
Evan Thomas is offline  
Old July 31, 2011, 09:53 AM   #56
ojibweindian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 20, 2000
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
Posts: 1,198
I'd ask him how the fish were biting. Seriously.
ojibweindian is offline  
Old July 31, 2011, 03:24 PM   #57
MLeake
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.
MLeake is offline  
Old July 31, 2011, 05:41 PM   #58
Evan Thomas
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:
Originally Posted by cracked91 View Post
Scenario : You are fishing off the shore at an isolated lake in the mountains, in the distance you see a man approaching you. You are openly carrying. He has no apparent weapons, and is walking rapidly, but not in a necessarily threatening manner. As he gets close to you, you turn to face him, and he continues approaching, closing in closer than 7 yards. You tell him to stop, he continues approaching, as if he did not hear you. You draw your weapon and point it at him while yelling at him to stop. He continues approaching.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mleake View Post
Some strange person is approaching.

Great, could be an attacker. Could be some guy who's been lost in the woods for days, suffering dehydration, and not fully lucid, who is approaching the only person he's seen, looking for help.

Going back to my earlier points, watch for his body language cues; present self-confident body language of your own; position yourself for possible evasion/weapon retention; be ready.

And, as I often add, some training in hand-to-hand would help buy time if somebody actually tries something. It also helps in the body language presentation.
As I said in my first post in this thread, my response would likely be to ask him what he wants; if there's no response, retreat and tell him to stop, with both words and gestures; and if he still comes closer without giving any indication of what he wants, draw pepper spray and use it if necessary to stop him.

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.
Evan Thomas is offline  
Old July 31, 2011, 05:49 PM   #59
shurshot
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?
shurshot is offline  
Old July 31, 2011, 06:06 PM   #60
threegun
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 1, 2006
Location: Tampa,Fl
Posts: 4,000
In this scenario....................
Quote:
Scenario : You are fishing off the shore at an isolated lake in the mountains, in the distance you see a man approaching you. You are openly carrying. He has no apparent weapons, and is walking rapidly, but not in a necessarily threatening manner. As he gets close to you, you turn to face him, and he continues approaching, closing in closer than 7 yards. You tell him to stop, he continues approaching, as if he did not hear you. You draw your weapon and point it at him while yelling at him to stop. He continues approaching.
the threat ignores warnings to stop approaching you. Why? IMO this indicates danger and thus must be met with a preparatory action. More commands and separation maintaining movement are essential. If this doesn't work then a draw (without pointing) and more commands while maintaining separation. When you can no longer retreat safely or the threat has over taken your minimum safe distance then you should defend yourself at that point.

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.
threegun is offline  
Old July 31, 2011, 06:23 PM   #61
threegun
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 1, 2006
Location: Tampa,Fl
Posts: 4,000
Quote:
I can't see killing a man, or even drawing a weapon because a person walks up to you.
Nobody suggested that. This person ignored a command to stop. Now you may be capable of knowing a mans intent simply by looking at them, most of us cannot. If you allow a man to get close enough to hit you, without attempting to ascertain his intent before he gets there and his intent is bad you are finished.

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.
threegun is offline  
Old August 1, 2011, 08:14 AM   #62
AH.74
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 13, 2008
Location: Hermit's Peak
Posts: 623
Quote:
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...
For pete's sake, please stop posing ridiculous hypotheticals which make no sense to try to support your argument.

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.
And (still to MLeake), your argument of trying to twist these facts into "warning someone off public lands" is not valid. Again, it makes no sense.
AH.74 is offline  
Old August 1, 2011, 08:38 AM   #63
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 2,259
Quote:
Quote:
Scenario : You are fishing off the shore at an isolated lake in the mountains, in the distance you see a man approaching you. You are openly carrying. He has no apparent weapons, and is walking rapidly, but not in a necessarily threatening manner. As he gets close to you, you turn to face him, and he continues approaching, closing in closer than 7 yards. You tell him to stop, he continues approaching, as if he did not hear you. You draw your weapon and point it at him while yelling at him to stop. He continues approaching.

You hesitate because you don't want to go to jail for murder and THATS when the zombie lurches forward and you are lunch!
I hate it when I'm fishing and the Xombies try to eat my brains. Dang zombies! At least now I have an excuse for not catching anything.
zincwarrior is offline  
Old August 1, 2011, 08:39 AM   #64
MLeake
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.
MLeake is offline  
Old August 1, 2011, 08:45 AM   #65
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 2,259
Quote:
Quote:
You're alone, except you're by a lake. Likely there are other fishermen there or coming there. But under this mantra the fisherman who sets down next to you is going to get shot. Really? Unless he owns the land he has no presumption some stranger is not going to plump right down next to him.

Presumption of guilt. Really?

Keep on changing the details to suit you, fine. I won't engage in those types of games with someone who can't keep things on the same level.
Before you get persnicketty you might look up how the law actually works. In more jurisdictions (granted there may be some this is the case) Self Defense is an affirmative defense. You've already admitted to the act and now you're trying to justify the act you did under a legally valid scheme. The presumption at that point is absolutely against you.
zincwarrior is offline  
Old August 1, 2011, 08:46 AM   #66
MLeake
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.
MLeake is offline  
Old August 1, 2011, 11:47 AM   #67
threegun
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.
threegun is offline  
Old August 1, 2011, 01:23 PM   #68
ripnbst
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.
ripnbst is offline  
Old August 1, 2011, 01:40 PM   #69
threegun
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 1, 2006
Location: Tampa,Fl
Posts: 4,000
Quote:
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"
Assuming you are asking this question of me running is a gamble because if you fall and injure yourself you will be less likely to be able to defend yourself. If the bad guy is faster than you obviously if you are running they will have your back at contact.

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.
threegun is offline  
Old August 1, 2011, 01:43 PM   #70
zincwarrior
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.
zincwarrior is offline  
Old August 1, 2011, 01:54 PM   #71
Pond, James Pond
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 6,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZINCWARRIOR
The more this hypotehtical is discussed, the more cooky its starting to sound.
+ 1 to that.
Pond, James Pond is offline  
Old August 1, 2011, 02:17 PM   #72
SurplusShooter
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.
SurplusShooter is offline  
Old August 1, 2011, 02:37 PM   #73
Evan Thomas
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.
Evan Thomas is offline  
Old August 1, 2011, 03:18 PM   #74
Pond, James Pond
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 6,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vanya
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.
My personal concern with this entire thread, as I outlined earlier, is that almost everyone is looking at this "individual" as an aggressor, largely because the OP phrased it in such a manner.

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
Pond, James Pond is offline  
Old August 1, 2011, 04:25 PM   #75
OldMarksman
Staff
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
Quote:
Posted by cracked91: Glenn, I am confident in my own abilities to judge and react to situations.
So--what was it that led you to conclude that you would be able to convincingly articulate to police officers or if necessary, to others why a reasonable person, knowing what you knew at the time, would conclude that you had been justified in drawing your firearm simply because the person did not stop approaching you?

You can help us by expanding upon the following:
  1. In what state did the incident occur?
  2. Was the man walking around the lake, along the shore, or toward the lake?
  3. If he appeared to be walking toward the lake, are you reasonably confident that his path toward you was not on a path that would have been reaonable for a person to take from his point of arrival to somewhere else to which he had a legal right to go?

Perhaps than we will be able to come up with an answer to this from zincwarrior:

Quote:
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?

Last edited by OldMarksman; August 1, 2011 at 04:34 PM.
OldMarksman is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.11176 seconds with 8 queries