Some scenarios for use of deadly force

[JERRYS.]

get to know the attitude of your jurisdiction to determine if you want a jury or a bench trial. this is if you are charged by the prosecutor/grand jury.

a prima facie justifiable use of deadly force is not usually going to put you in criminal court except for the most backwards locales.

[briandg]

Number four very obviously doesn't present a threat that justifies homicide. You barely have simple assault, the guy made a verbal threat and that's all. until the gun came out, etc, there was nothing to create an obvious sense of mortal danger and that isn't going to pass any tests.

The thing to consider when creating or reading about scenarios that escalate like this is that justification for force does not mean that it is mandatory. you can only act if the situation clearly calls for force according to the laws of the jurisdiction. the actions will be tested in the criminal justice system to see if the actions were in accord with written laws.

"he said he was going to kill me! I had to do something!

It also includes the important fact that every scenario is a liquid thing, that even a racial difference can completely change the perception of danger, completely upsetting every part of the scenario. Every bit of those scenarios can change, such as whether the guy drew his gun, or whether he made even more threatening gestures, such as racking the slide and putting the thing up to the victim's forehead. Just as the situation itself is fluid, so is the frame of mind that the victim is in. Does having a gun loosely held pointing towards the victim truly indicate threat of deadly violence, and does the victim truly believe that it does? If hannibal lector casually waved a steak knife at me, that's awfully bothersome. If pee wee herman casually showed a gun and threatened to kill me, I couldn't take it seriously. I surely wouldn't shoot until there was a much greater reason to fear for my life.

People in these scenarios are forced to decide whether their fears are justified, and if use of force in defence is their only nor at least best option. the courts are forced to decide on whether that was a bad decision.

It almost comes down to "what would Jesus do?" In the situation it is helpful if you know what other people will say about the scenario.

One thing that I can assure you. Never ask yourself "what would Briandg do?" come on, I'm an idiot. I personally ask "what would you do if you had half a brain?"

[JERRYS.]

one thing I haven't read here yet is that you will have to make this decision in a second of you're lucky. you will not have the benefit of hindsight or the luxury of time.

[OldMarksman]

Number four very obviously doesn't present a threat that justifies homicide.

Wha is your basis for that assessment?

You barely have simple assault, the guy made a verbal threat and that's all.

What the assailant may or may not be charged with is entirely irrelevant tot th question of justification.
different issue for a different court.

until the gun came out, etc, there was nothing to create an obvious sense of mortal danger and that isn't going to pass any tests.

Really? What is your basis for that opinion?

[Lohman446]

Give me your money or I will kill you while brandishing the means to accomplish the later seems like a fairly specific, credible, and imminent threat.

I don't buy the entire argument that the gun has to be drawn and pointed at you before the threat is imminent or credible. Don't want to put yourself in a position where lethal force is justified against you? Don't bring lethal force to the table.

I still maintain that the "correct" course of action is to hand over your wallet. The costs, both financial, emotional, moral, and legal are FAR less.

The best "tactics" for dealing with a firearm at contact range is going to depend on your physical condition and training. Personally if most people attempt to draw on me at "give me your wallet" distance my best bet is probably to step in and deal with the threat directly - attempting to prevent the gun from being drawn. Your mileage will vary.

[OldMarksman]

Give me your money or I will kill you while brandishing the means to accomplish the later seems like a fairly specific, credible, and imminent threat.

That's certainly an understatement!

I don't buy the entire argument that the gun has to be drawn and pointed at you before the threat is imminent or credible.

Why should anyone buy any of it?

I still maintain that the "correct" course of action is to hand over your wallet. The costs, both financial, emotional, moral, and legal are FAR less.

Should it work, yes. And it just might. But it might not.

[Lohman446]

Should it work, yes. And it just might. But it might not.

There is a small time of disadvantage in reaching for your wallet that I need to acknowledge. Most people will be pulling their wallet with their strong hand which puts them at a disadvantage. Should the movement of your hand somehow move your covering garment you may alert the aggressor to the presence of your weapon. While this is not likely I think I would be remiss in not acknowledging it. You may also allow your attention to be diverted from the aggressor and compliance may in fact embolden the person in front of you. As you note handing over your wallet may not stop the threat. We are taking the aggressor at his or her word in regards to the choices presented. We also seem to be dismissing the fact that you will have shown yourself to be a compliant victim to someone you are handing your home address to.

With those caveats being noted I think it is important to understand that handing over your wallet does not prevent you from taking other more direct defensive actions. As there are multiple scenarios presented here should we be dealing with an issue where the gun is not drawn movement to draw the pistol by the aggressor should still elicit a direct course of defensive action by the defender. For instance, in both cases where the gun is not drawn, I raise up my hands to show compliance, verbally assure compliance to the aggressor, and pull out my wallet while keeping my attention on the aggressor. Should he or she then make movement towards drawing the weapon I can still respond appropriately to the modified threat.

I agree that handing over your wallet may not end the threat. While I acknowledge there are some concerns with doing so I do not think those concerns outweigh the value of the chance of success of simply handing over your wallet.

Though this does have me thinking about a second issue. The aggressor is probably not after your wallet and frankly handing over your wallet creates logistical concerns after the fact should the aggressor take it and leave. I would be more concerned about having handed over my address, especially after the aggressor has been taught that I will be a compliant victim, and the various credit cards and other things that will need cancelled and replaced. Frankly its going to be a pain. The aggressor is probably not after any of those things and is frankly probably after cash. Perhaps a money clip carried in your weak side pocket alleviates some of the concerns with pulling your wallet and would likely accomplish the same goal of appeasement.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

All this electron throwing of doing this and that and expecting this and that is BS - I will be outrageous here.

You need to take quality combined FOF training with guns, hands, pizzas and whatever to get a feel for this stuff on the move.

It's getting like a discussion of sexual techniques among virgins.

Why do I say pizza? It's fun to do a hold up with the good guy holding a pizza or the good guy holding a pizza and entering a house where things go bad - and see how many folks still carry the pizza around.

[briandg]

Marksman, you aren't going to agree with me no matter what I say. The everyday man knows that there is no exposed weapon, no threat at all but a spoken threat. A spoken threat is not an acceptable excuse to draw and fire. Jesus, ten year olds do that. The every day man who will be answering the judges call for honest opinion will be what matters. Bank tellers are told to take every note or spoken threat seriously and just hand over the money, but the armed security guards are all going to be told "don't shoot a guy just because he said something."

One time I made the mistake of saying to the mail man regarding the weight limit of priority boxes, "i could send a cube of depleted uranium with a that weight limit." Did he call the cops and search my box? no. Maybe an airport employee would, but the guy at the post office knew that I wasn't sending yellowcake.

I've got no need to even argue with you about what people might think. you think in an entirely different way than I do. Enough said.

Hand over your wallet. maybe if you do so he will leave, maybe as he takes the wallet he will drop his guard and you can shoot him in the head.

Maybe, maybe, maybe, let's all decide what we should do when maybe comes up. Scenarios can be endlessly entertaining.

[Lohman446]

It's getting like a discussion of sexual techniques among virgins.

While I will never question the value of force of force training the implication that it is "the real thing" sometimes can be taken too far. There is some analogy about in here about the use of adult novelties not being the same as the real thing but I cannot come up with it.

Might it be as close to the real thing as you are going to get? Depending on the instructor and he other participants probably.

Obviously, and thankfully, in regards to the matters we are discussing there are not a lot of people who are actually experts and experienced with the real thing around.

For the record I was not intending to advocate throwing your wallet or money. My belief is that you are better off handing over what the aggressor is looking for and hoping the situation resolves itself without force. I do not believe aggravating an already aggressive person is decreasing the risk of the use of force by one party or the other.

[Lohman446]

A spoken threat is not an acceptable excuse to draw and fire.

In fairness we are trying to discuss multiple scenarios here and it may be confusing the discussion to a degree. A spoken threat while brandishing the means to accomplish that threat is not simply a spoken threat at that point. From both a practical and legal stand point they are distinct.

[briandg]

Lohman, marksman was specifically speaking solely about a spoken threat with no evidence of a weapon as stated in the original post. He was referring to my comments on that statement in the original post. Factually, a threat that is nothing but "give me your money or I will kill you" with no means to do so is not justifician to draw a weapon and kill the assailant.

There was a clearly stated premise, there was a clearly stated response, and he doesn't agree that legal considerations of the situation are relevant to the response that should be given.

God almighty, there hasn't been a crime committed other than simple assault, there has not been any physical threat made, no weapons, absolutely no obvious or apparent reason to believe that the assailant can or will or even intends, or even for that matter is even really thinking about killing the person who he is attempting to rob.

Only an idiot would draw and fire with no provocation other than an unarmed person who makes a hollow threat with no obvious capactiy or motivation or tools to commit murder.

If anyone wants to throw in that the assailant was obviously insane, twitching and talking to himself, the guy who was just seen on a wanted poster, ANYONE who wants to change the scenario to make the situation more dangerous than it was prevented, go right ahead. once you change that scenario or adding complications, there's no reason for you to argue with this, because by changing the scenario, you have just made the question void.

The question was what options do you have if an unarmed man demands money under threat of death?

the answer is simple. You don't kill him in defense until there is a credible belief that he actually presents a threat that is credible. Otherwise, how can anyone use the word "defense" when there was nothing to defend against?

[Lohman446]

Missed the specificity.

The unarmed individual represents a different level of threat to different individuals. Would I likely get away with the idea that there was a legitimate threat? If the individual in question looks like an NFL line-back probably. What about my 18 year old with no formal training, who has avoided the very concept of physical conflict even in play, would not be able to outrun most aggressors, and weighs 120lbs? That threat becomes a lot more credible in that case.

[OldMarksman]

There is a small time of disadvantage in reaching for your wallet that I need to acknowledge.

What does that mean?

As you note handing over your wallet may not stop the threat.

That's the issue, and the only real issue.

We are taking the aggressor at his or her word in regards to the choices presented.

Why would anyone think it prudent to do that, unless it is the only practical response?

With those caveats being noted I think it is important to understand that handing over your wallet does not prevent you from taking other more direct defensive actions.

I would not "hand" it over, but a slow toss may buy you time.

As there are multiple scenarios presented here should we be dealing with an issue where the gun is not drawn movement to draw the pistol by the aggressor should still elicit a direct course of defensive action by the defender.

Do you really think it's a good idea to wait for him to reach for his gun?

That's the way it works in western screen fiction, but that would be a terrible time to start trying to defend yourself.

For instance, in both cases where the gun is not drawn, I raise up my hands to show compliance, verbally assure compliance to the aggressor, and pull out my wallet while keeping my attention on the aggressor.

If, in the light of the situation as you see it, you really think that would work, go for it. It's a judgment call.

Should he or she then make movement towards drawing the weapon I can still respond appropriately to the modified threat.

Just how quickly do you think you can draw, fire, and effect a stop? Do you really want to give an armed robber a head start in a fast draw contest played for high stakes?

I agree that handing over your wallet may not end the threat. While I acknowledge there are some concerns with doing so I do not think those concerns outweigh the value of the chance of success of simply handing over your wallet.

That's a judgment call.

Though this does have me thinking about a second issue. The aggressor is probably not after your wallet and frankly handing over your wallet creates logistical concerns after the fact should the aggressor take it and leave. I would be more concerned about having handed over my address, especially after the aggressor has been taught that I will be a compliant victim, and the various credit cards and other things that will need cancelled and replaced. Frankly its going to be a pain.

If you have survived an armed robbery without having been seriously injured, those little inconveniences will be minor, and failure to avoid them would not be a reason for regretting not having used deadly force.

Every encounter involving a serious threat will have to be dealt with as it unfolds, without delay. One does not ever want to harm anyone else unless it is immediately necessary. The wallet is not the issue. Robbery is not a property crime. What one wants to do is to avoid being seriously harmed.

Glenn's recommendation is a good one. It will give you a much better idea of your ability to act under realistic circumstances. Self defense and shooting at the square range are not the came thing.

It will likely shatter any assumptions one may have of how people will react in the event--there are too many variables and possible outcomes.

It has been said before in a different context, but the question is not whether a defender would be justified in shooting, but whether the defender would have a basis for a reasonable belief that the use of force, deadly or otherwise, would be immediately necessary.

Then the justification element will come in. Just to review the bidding, that means A, O, J, and P.

And those who knows the subject know, and understand why, that it is not necessary to be faced by a robber with a drawn gun, or to have a robber reach for his gun, or even to actually see the gun before acting.

The FoF training will demonstrate all of that quite well. Can't afford Simunitions, equipment, and prerequisite prior training? Use Airsoft.

Lest there be any question about it, if I judge that giving up the wallet in a robbery will very, very likely suffice to end a threat to my life, or that doing anything else would put me at more risk, that's just what I'll do.

[Lohman446]

Just how quickly do you think you can draw, fire, and effect a stop? Do you really want to give an armed robber a head start in a fast draw contest played for high stakes?

Do I think I can outdraw someone from a concealed position? Not in the least. At "give me your wallet" distance I think I can prevent someone from drawing and "win" the subsequent physical encounter. I have practiced this encounter enough to believe it will work but there is a difference between a controlled contact environment and reality. I hope to never test the difference

[Glenn E. Meyer]

My belief is that you are better off handing over what the aggressor is looking for and hoping the situation resolves itself without force. I do not believe aggravating an already aggressive person is decreasing the risk of the use of force by one party or the other.

I find it interesting that folks have a IMO about how the criminal will react if they do this or that. How do you know that? Are you telepathic or a skilled observer of criminal behavior such as Dr. William Aprill?

One thing in a good FOF is that we can script responses that may not be in accord with your Internet opinion.

Yeah, it depends on the trainer. Find a good one.

[OldMarksman]

At "give me your wallet" distance I think I can prevent someone from drawing and "win" the subsequent physical encounter.

Okay, try it. Try a dozen scenarios. Different "robbers", including people whom you do not know. The other guy defines what "give me your wallet" distance means.

Then tell us whether you still really think it would be a good idea to wait for an armed robber to draw first.

Wear safety glasses. Make sure both of you are using training equipment.

[Lohman446]

One thing in a good FOF is that we can script responses that may not be in accord with your Internet opinion

Of course those scripted responses may or may not reflect reality either. I recall sitting in on one course that "specialized" in teaching hand to hand combat against multiple attackers. The problem was the "attackers" all kind of stood in a circle around the defender and waited their turn. It may have been a useful test of endurance but not multiple attackers. I found it unrealistic and moved on.

Okay, try it. Try a dozen scenarios. Different "robbers", including people whom you do not know. The other guy defines what "give me your wallet" distance means.

I have. Though I will admit "give me your wallet" distance has not ever varied enough to create much variance and I have had a pretty good idea of the skill level of the other participants. Some of them would "always" win too. Then again they would have always beat me had a gun not been involved at those distances anyways.

[OldMarksman]

Of course those scripted responses may or may not reflect reality either.

What are you trying say? Are you pointing out the obvious, that in the event something may happen that was not tried in simulation?

What are we supposed to do with that?

I have. Though I will admit "give me your wallet" distance has not ever varied enough to create much variance and I have had a pretty good idea of the skill level of the other participants. Some of them would "always" win too.

And you still believe that to be the thing to do?

And why, pray tell , would you ever even consider waiting for an armed robber to draw first?

[Lohman446]

And you still believe that to be the thing to do?

And why, pray tell , would you ever even consider waiting for an armed robber to draw first?

The same type of exercise tells me I will win the physical conflict more often than I would win a quick draw competition. The people who always won the physical conflict were VERY skilled fighters.

I know the question "how do you know the aggressor is not a VERY skilled fighter?" I don't. I also do not know if he or she is VERY skilled gun-fighter who will win a quick draw every time.

[OldMarksman]

Lohman, marksman was specifically speaking solely about a spoken threat with no evidence of a weapon as stated in the original post. He was referring to my comments on that statement in the original post. Factually, a threat that is nothing but "give me your money or I will kill you" with no means to do so is not justifician to draw a weapon and kill the assailant.

The scenario as described had the robber saying "I have a gun. Give me your money or I will kill you".

In that circumstance, I think that a reasonable person would believe that the threat was imminent and real.

Real, enough, that is to justify and to make very prudent, the drawing of a firearm for self defense--and to make it very imprudent to not do so.

Firing it? I don't think so--yet. I suggest that it would likely never come to that.

One other thing--a defender in an armed robbery is never, ever, justified in attempting to kill a robber.

[spacemanspiff]

Why do I say pizza? It's fun to do a hold up with the good guy holding a pizza or the good guy holding a pizza and entering a house where things go bad - and see how many folks still carry the pizza around.

Yeah going up against a baddie with a pizza in your hands is fun, but if ya want REAL life scenario try doing it without spilling yer MGD lite.

1. Guy comes up to you, pulls a gun from his pants, and says "Give me your wallet or I'll kill you."

2. Same deal, but he only lifts his shirt and shows you the grip of his gun...but doesn't draw it.

3. Same deal, but he puts his hand under his shirt in what looks like a gun-gripping, getting-ready-to-draw move...but you never see a gun, just his hand disappearing under his shirt.

4. Same deal, but he only says "I have a gun...five me your wallet or I'll kill you."

Everyone should keep in mind that compliance has never guaranteed survival. What one chooses to do or not to do may be different from what you or I choose to do or not do, but that doesn't necessarily mean those different choices are wrong.

As for number 3, I have had something similar happen to me. No death threats, no demands for my wallet, but a confrontation by someone who I am positive had intent to rob me. His accomplice seemed to have approached too soon with the getaway car thus spoiling their chance. But he did continue the interaction, following after me for about a block, trying to get me to stop and talk to him. His hand was in his coat pocket, and my hand was on my holstered pistol. I had limited escape options, being middle of winter, running on icy streets is out of the question, and there was enough traffic I could not readily cross the street. He eventually broke contact as I caught a break in the traffic but as he did he reached out to slap my hand holding the grip of my gun and he said 'Bang', then he retreated.

He was far too close for comfort, but had not made any explicit threat upon me, displayed no weapon, otherwise I would have drawn. Can't say if I would have won.

[Lohman446]

The scenario as described had the robber saying "I have a gun. Give me your money or I will kill you".

In that circumstance, I think that a reasonable person would believe that the threat was imminent and real.

Real, enough, that is to justify and to make very prudent, the drawing of a firearm for self defense--and to make it very imprudent to not do so.

I think you have hit on a point that some of us forget. "Using" your firearm to escape a situation does not necessarily mean using lethal force*. I once had a threat made across the counter by an individual who was there with two others while I was alone. Stepping back and putting my hand on my holstered pistol ended the encounter.

I had not put a lot of thought into scenario four. I recalled, in passing, reading of a bank teller who told a robbery suspect "no" http://www.sacbee.com/news/nation-wo...176918921.html and had the suspect simply walk out. Interesting case-study but might not be useful for discussion or even indicative of what is likely to happen.

My thought process in situations like this, as far as justification for the use of force, is to consider if I would convict the shooter or not should he or she use lethal force. I did not consider if I would convict or not for brandishment and in consideration would not in those scenarios.

Scenario 1-3 were simple for me in that, absent a compelling reason not to I would acquit. A "live by the sword, die by the sword" type thought process. Bring a gun to a robbery and end up having lethal force used against you its the game you played. Scenario 4 I would lean towards acquittal but I really would need to hear the rest of the story. Again stupid is as stupid does - don't elude to a gun if you are not willing and able to use it. Please don't take this as legal advise as I am not qualified and can only tell you how I would lean as a juror based on very little knowledge.

*I get that is what we are trained to do. I get that most of us know that. However the collective we, or at least myself, sometimes forget that in these conversations.

[briandg]

My thought process in situations like this, as far as justification for the use of force, is to consider if I would convict the shooter or not should he or she use lethal force.

That is a huge portion of what i think of every time one of these "what if" or any other discussions come up.

Would I convict? Maybe I'm already throwing my computer across the room and yelling "YOU MORON"! it matters a bit where it happened, who the shooter was, who his 'victim' was, etc, but not as much as whether or not a person shot in a situation that was clearly lacking in genuine provocation or risk. If I, a reasonable man by the legal definitions, am saying "I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT YOU DID THAT"! i am already practicing for when the situation comes.

There was a case recently in chicago. Kid asked a guy for his wallet, guy said no, kid shot him without another word. of course there are random and chaotic events With thousands of killings every year, probably every scenario we write has already happened somewhere, right?

I decided many years ago that I'd rather fake a seizure, vomit, piss my pants, and start yelling for my mommy while rolling around on the ground. I will either be shot, beaten, robbed, or maybe even left alone. Sometimes I really do believe that dying would be better than going to trial and being imprisoned.

[OldMarksman]

....it matters a bit where it happened, who the shooter was, who his 'victim' was, etc, but not as much as whether or not a person shot in a situation that was clearly lacking in genuine provocation or risk.

What do you think that provocation might have to do with immediate necessity?