Scenario: Unarmed assailant advancing

[AH.74]

Then you would think your responses would be more appropiate if you supposedly dealt with them "in real life." You're not acting like it.

Zincwarrior, there was nothing supposed about it. I hope you never have to go through anything like it. Try not to be such a hater, it's unbecoming and lends nothing to the discussion. I have no reason to lie to you.

None of my responses have been inappropriate, whatsoever. I'm still here talking to you, for the moment, and wasn't charged with a felony as you seem to think I should have been.

[zincwarrior]

Your posts throughout this thread have been on the edge of flame baity, AK, don't get on a high horse now. Further, you're also assuming others posting have not had life experiences. Thats an assumption and thats wrong. More importantly, its not relevant.

You may have had an experience in you past where events happened and they didn't prosecute or you were no billed or something. But unless the OP is your life story, its no more relevant than anything else, as it fills in facts not related to the OP.


Its a strange hypothetical case with little bearing on reality, and there are posters from a variety of jurisdictions. I can say with the original fact pattern noted, if you pull a piece and pop somebody based on the sole fact that they appear and don't stop when you yell at them, and the police find out, you're going to jail. Its like a test question on CHL test or something and how NOT to handle a situation.

[MLeake]

AH.74, you're right, the OP has drawn a weapon in the scenario - but since the argument is whether drawing is even legal or appropriate, I've discounted the drawn gun part of his "facts."

"Hey, I pointed a gun at this guy for no legal reason, and he didn't do what I wanted... so I'm justified in shooting now, right?"

So, I won't give you or the OP that "fact."

As far as maturity levels, you're right, I shouldn't have been condescending toward your having been attacked. Even though you were belittling my hypotheticals of injured, disoriented, deaf, or non-English speaking folk - ALL of whom have been encountered in wilderness settings, and none of which are actually much of a reach - I should not have belittled your incident. Although it was a one-off, and not statistically significant, it had direct meaning for you.

But your incident doesn't make your suggested reactions any more reasonable, to a typical juror.

And your attitude merited a certain degree of snarkiness. Based on zincwarrior's last post, it seems I'm not the only one who feels that way.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by threegun: If you are following me and fail to heed warnings to stop you are a threat.

Well, maybe, but that's not by any stretch of the imagination enough to conclude that the person poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. Even if one were to so conclude, it wouldn't pass the reasonable person test. Too many elements are missing.

Preparing to defend yourself against a threat is not illegal.

Depends upon how one prepares. Drawing a firearm would be unlawful, absent the rest of the elements (ability, opportunity, and jeopardy). It would comprise a very serious felony (probably aggravated assault, depending upon the laws in the jurisdiction), and as discussed below, it could also lead to the person with the gun being shot, quite possibly legally.

He is unarmed so his ability or means of causing death or grave bodily injury have been determined to be his arms and legs.

That's known as the disparity of force defense.

It's a tough one, but it can work. What courts have allowed include a gender difference (male attacker vs. female defender); a significant size difference; disparity of numbers; a fit attacker vs a physically impaired defender; or a significant difference in fighting skill, provided that the defender knew about it in advance. And it's still a tough one. The fact that it has been shown that one person can kill another with fists or feet will not cut it.

Reasonable people don't continue to close on a man pointing a gun at them who is clearly fearful of your presence. And for the add on being followed part, reasonable people don't follow someone that they are scaring by following. Reasonable people definitely don't do these things without saying a word.

Whether or not the hiker is a reasonable person does not enter into the question of what the fisherman my lawfully do.

What the hiker might reasonably do if he has not actually started an altercation and someone has pulled a gun on him is going to vary, but one cannot outrun a bullet, so retreat is out of the question.

However, at that point the strange hiker would likely have reason to believe that he was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, and that he would be justified in employing deadly force i any way possible against the man with the drawn gun. A third person viewing the scene could easily conclude the same thing; he just might fire away, and he just might be judged as having been justified under the law.

So IMO reasonable people in a jury would understand my concern/fear and justify my drawing of my weapon and perhaps even the shooting should the stranger get to close.

Not in my considered opinion, and as a matter of law, it is quite possible that the jury would not even be instructed to consider the matter as a self defense case. Distance and the fact that he is acting strangely are only part of the formula. More likely, they would be given the instructions that apply to an aggravated assault case, if no shots had been fired, or those that apply to a manslaughter or murder case, had the hiker been killed

There are three links in post #94 that should explain all of that rather thoroughly. Read and study them carefully. After having done so, if it is at all possible, do your self a real favor and sign up to attend MAG-20/Classroom, Armed Citizens' Rules of Engagement: A two-day, 20-hour immersion course in rules of engagement for armed law-abiding private citizens. That course will provide one with more knowledge on the subject than is taught in law schools or in police academies.

The above recommendation is not aimed at threegun. Everyone should heed it.

All of the above is 'vanilla" stuff that applies in all jurisdictions. To better predict how it would come down in a particular jurisdiction, it would be necessary to know the law and all of the relevant case law, the jury instructions for each kind of possible case, and if possible, the leanings of the local prosecutors and sitting grand juries.

[zincwarrior]

As far as maturity levels, you're right, I shouldn't have been condescending toward your having been attacked. Even though you were belittling my hypotheticals of injured, disoriented, deaf, or non-English speaking folk - ALL of whom have been encountered in wilderness settings, and none of which are actually much of a reach - I should not have belittled your incident. Although it was a one-off, and not statistically significant, it had direct meaning for you.

Good point. I will apologize to AK as well.

[threegun]

Oldmarksman, Earlier I asked you how you would have handled this scenario. your response was to follow the link provided.

Considering the facts available and assuming you are both about equal in size how would have handled this personally? A play by play so to speak.

FWIW I would rather err on the side of caution even at the risk of law. I feel in this case that the stranger has an obligation to not put me in fear of him, death, or grave bodily injury. He made several mistakes including ignoring a command to stop and not getting an ok to close on me. In the woods things aren't the same. When you approach people or camps you make verbal contact. In the middle of nowhere you are your only defender. There is no backup or LE to call. There are no witnesses. A bad call in this scenario equals a fight for your life. If you lose you die. According to your threshold even if the man attacks you, you would have to wait until you are being beaten and unable to defend yourself to pull or shoot, if you and the stranger are of equal size. I see that as tactical suicide and wouldn't purposely allow it ever and at any legal risk.

I'm not going to follow the OP's steps. I will add some court friendly tactics to confirm the strangers intent. If I cannot escape or persuade him to stop he will force me to defend myself.

I hope you can see the our side on how dangerous it is to allow some stranger to do what the OP posted unchallenged. I'm looking forward to your personal response to it.

[youngunz4life]

we've had picture contests but I might have to nominate this one for thread of the year for Craig91...lol...or at least involve it in a contest for best scenario with moderators.

[threegun]

Its definitely a darned if you do darned if you don't type scenario. It mixes the legally appropriate with the tactically appropriate and in this case they are oil and vinegar. Its the gray area type scenario that guys (and gals) like us should be discussing now and not during.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by threegun: Oldmarksman, Earlier I asked you how you would have handled this scenario. your response was to follow the link provided.

Considering the facts available and assuming you are both about equal in size how would have handled this personally? A play by play so to speak.

I hope you can see the our side on how dangerous it is to allow some stranger to do what the OP posted unchallenged. I'm looking forward to your personal response to it.

The reason for suggesting following the links provided was to give everyone the rules of engagement. I am aware that that does not answer the question. I subsequently put forth in Post #123 some thoughts on how one might deal with this most difficult situation, hoping for some constructive comments or some other suggestions.

I understand that, had evasion failede, drawing a firearm might be the only reasonable alternative available. I also know that that could lead to his or her being charged, or charged and convicted, or shot.

So, how about a less than lethal response?

I mentioned a walking stick. Yes, that could be considered a bludgeon, which is a deadly weapon. However, it seems to me that it might suffice while causing minimal injury.

Its definitely a darned if you do darned if you don't type scenario. It mixes the legally appropriate with the tactically appropriate and in this case they are oil and vinegar. Its the gray area type scenario that guys (and gals) like us should be discussing now and not during.

Yes on all counts.

[youngunz4life]

I mentioned a walking stick. Yes, that could be considered a bludgeon, which is a deadly weapon. However, it seems to me that it might suffice while causing minimal injury.

that is not going to work for me; we shouldn't have to try and be understanding. Someone average at hand-to-hand combat could take the stick away from you.

[threegun]

that is not going to work for me; we shouldn't have to try and be understanding. Someone average at hand-to-hand combat could take the stick away from you.

I agree a stick stinks. Even big hard sticks. I hope this doesn't flame the escrima stick fighters LOL.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by youngunz4life: that [a stick] is not going to work for me;...

Works for most people. Are you recommending the use of a firearm?

...we shouldn't have to try and be understanding.

Who said anything about being understanding? We're trying to keep from possibly being stabbed or slashed if the hiker turns out to be violent, and from being locked up for a very long time for using unlawful force.

Someone average at hand-to-hand combat could take the stick away from you.

Most of the time, a gun beats a stick, a stick beats a knife, and a knife beats hands.

Ever read any of Ayoob's stories about old guys doing in a couple of violent criminal actors with a cane?

What would you do?

[chadstrickland]

Ihave just read the scenario and skipped to the end, a drive by I suppose

First of all I would have stopped what I was doing and faced the man walking toward me and first would have tried to speak with him such as, hey what's up? Can I help you? When he was still 15 or so yards away from me, if he ignored me I would have moved out of his way to see if it was me he was after or was he just deaf and tired walking in a straight line and if he changed his course to match mine I would have pulled my gun and made clear my intentions to defend myself if he kept advancing ( deaf or not a gun in your face is a sign to stop ) I would shoot him once he got within 7 yards of me.

Logical thing would be to shoot him in the knee cap incase he had a heat stroke and temporarily lost his mind, but in the" laws eyes" that's wrong. So better safe than sorry

[youngunz4life]

I already said what I would do, so I am not going to repeat myself. If it came down to defending myself I wouldn't rely on a stick. If I was surprised I would go hand-to-hand(I would take the luck if I could get one swing from the stick).

Who said anything about being understanding? We're trying to keep from possibly being stabbed or slashed if the hiker turns out to be violent, and from being locked up for a very long time for using unlawful force.

that's your problem: you shouldn't have had to rely on the damn stick in the 1st place. do yourself a favor if he tries to slash you. feed him dinner before he crosses over to the other side with a cylinder full

[MLeake]

As far as sticks go...

... they are very useful if one encounters a snake or small to medium critter.

They can be useful if one manages to injure a leg or foot.

They are good for just resting on.

They can also be used for steadying a rifle, in some scenarios.

As far as self-defense with sticks goes, it's something that, if you think you might employ it, you should actually get some training. A trained person with a stick can lay a hurting on somebody. An untrained person... I'd put even money, or even give you better than even, that I could take that stick away.

[paddling_man]

"Scenario : You are fishing off the shore at an isolated lake in the mountains, in the distance you see a man approaching you."

Been there many, many times. Lots of solo hiking. Ex-girlfriend did the AT solo the year we broke up. Me, I'm too lazy. Maybe why she left me. Most of my backcountry has been limited to solo trips of only 3-4 days. Lots of 3-4 day solo backcountry trips though.

"You are openly carrying."

Cool. Sometimes I OC. Often in the woods. Usually CC in the city but that is a different debate.

"He has no apparent weapons, and is walking rapidly, but not in a necessarily threatening manner."

We call that hiking. Most people who hike outside of a city park do it at a rapid clip. Often zoned into their walk, like a long distance jogger/biker/kayaker. I'm not an adrenaline junkie (though I've been accused...) An endorphin junkie though? Oh, yeah.

"As he gets close to you, you turn to face him, and he continues approaching, closing in closer than 7 yards."

Woods are full of natural trails. Trails made by animals and used later by people. This is all still VERY normal for the true backwoods. At least in my experience in the southeastern mountains, southwestern desert mountains, pacific northwest and northern woods.

"You tell him to stop, he continues approaching, as if he did not hear you."

Let's repeat that last part... "as if he did not hear you." And, maybe he didn't? The reasons are myriad. Hard of hearing (me) and he didn't understand you? Non-english speaking and didn't understand you? Nowhere in the above scenario has the OP discussed engaging any body language that would indicate the person-in-question stop. No raised hands. Also, he says "tell him;" not yelling, redfaced and gesturing. The guy is in a zone? You hike long enough and get into an endorphin high, your pulse is pounding in your ears, you hear your own respiration and you are walking at a rapid clip.

All you did was "tell him to stop." One time... you are armed and he is "non-threatening."

The OP does not say whether it is day or night... we might safely assume day since he says the person-in-question is approaching from a distance. Still, I won't assume, though I believe we safely could.

Now, you are out fishing at an isolated mountain lake. Everything above has happened...

Do you feel threatened? I wouldn't. Maybe you would. I feel more threatened - I'm CONVINCED I'm more threatened - on a routine basis in urban environments. Still, I am *not* allowed to legally draw and/or shoot someone in the situation above nor in an urban environment with no more evidence than the above. Does this "rapidly walking" "non-threatening" person have on earbud/iphones?? Heck, all we've done to alert the person thus far is to "tell him to stop." You turned to face him and mouthed something from 21 feet away.

Some people say "hello" when passing in the woods. Other people respect that folks have gone out of their way to get away from people by going into the middle of the woods and attempt to avoid disturbing them by keeping quiet and passing on by. Particularly fishermen!

If, for some odd reason - clearly not your intuition, since you've stated he appears "non-threatening" - you feel the need for action: RUN. RUN AWAY. RUN FAST AND HARD. CLIMB A TREE.

Does that seem extreme? Does it seem silly? Not nearly as the next quote from the OP.

If you feel embarrassment at the idea of running from this "walking rapidly, but not in a necessarily threatening manner" person in the woods - this person who, in my experience in the woods, would not be indicating anything unusual in their behavior... If you feel embarrassment that running is too extreme, then I suggest that:

"You draw your weapon and point it at him while yelling at him to stop."

... is entirely too extreme.

The OP has NOT satisfied the need to retreat from this non-threatening source before drawing down on someone.

"He continues approaching."

Whoa. After all of the above - and I strongly feel that the OP, as directed in his quotes, DID NOT satisfy the requirements to threaten someone with deadly force and could / should be criminally prosecuted and not be allowed to wander society with a firearm or a 4,000 moving vehicle - the person continues approaching?! Well, heck yes he is a threat and shoot him graveyard dead!

(Deep breath.)

Seriously though... as long as we follow the OP's quote line word for word and not throw in our own variables, he did NOT satisfy the legal - heck, I think even the reasonable - requirements of the situation before he drew a firearm and pointed it in a deadly manner at another.

If the OP felt that frightened and apprehensive, then run, run run. Does that seem silly to you? Yeah, it does to me, too.

If the OP had felt threatened by this person "walking rapidly, but not in a necessarily threatening manner" - AND the OP had begun to run... AND THE person began to chase him. Then, yeah. We gotta problem in alpine-lake-land. Heck, we gotta made for tv movie. Shoot 'em graveyard dead! Climb a tree? They start climbing up after you? Graveyard dead, baby.

What the OP describes though at the stage of the drawing the gun - things really don't warrant it in the direct quotes based on typical behavior of folks out hiking and fishing. Drawing the gun was without good cause, at least IMHO. The judge/jury can make that determination if the OPs situation was actual rather than hypothetical. The person-in-question - *after the gun was drawn* and the OP yelled rather than a single "tell him to stop" - continuing to advance?? Well, heck yeah a threat. Though the OP would have made so many assumptions of threat without evidence prior to the illegal aiming of a firearm at the PIQ, wow.

"In the woods things aren't the same. When you approach people or camps you make verbal contact." Approaching a camp in the dark? Absolutely. Trail hiking in the day? Not necessarily so at all. Again, other people respect that folks have gone out of their way to get away from people by going into the middle of the woods and attempt to avoid disturbing them by keeping quiet and passing on by. Particularly fishermen!


I wouldn't expect someone who is afraid for their life to be so concerned with the law that they put themselves in jeopardy. The old, judged by 12 rather than carried by 6. No doubt.

I also wouldn't like to share the woods with anyone, based exactly on the word-for-word quotes, who felt like drawing on someone based on those above quotes was truly warranted.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by youngunz4life: I already said what I would do, so I am not going to repeat myself.

Well, you have said this:

If he just ignored me and kept rapidly advancing, I would definately draw...

So, what is it that makes you think that you would not stand a very high chance of losing your fortune, your clean record, your gun rights, and you personal freedom, if you were to draw you firearm because an unarmed man had come your way in the great outdoors?

But you have also said this:

I still think if this scenario happened in real life, people would die because they chose to stand their ground without drawing (that's in the case if it was actually a BG). It is a shame if someone would allow themselves to get into that situation.

So would you choose to not stand your ground, or to draw? Hint: the former is a lot more likely to keep you out of jail.

And just what is it hat makes you believe that "people would die"? Has the mysterious hiker given any such indication?

that's your problem: you shouldn't have had to rely on the damn stick in the 1st place.

That would be great. How would you put yourself into that situation?

[OldMarksman]

...nails it.

[paddling_man]

Thanks.

[youngunz4life]

yes, I did say those things as well as a host of other things. This isn't a biased news forum. If I felt ok(which is very possible), I would just continue fishing. If the scenario made me uncomfortable I would do as I and many others have said. I am not going to agree with you and your snippets aren't changing my mind. sorry, ain't buyin it. The fact is either way it is handled it can end good or bad. I can tell you one thing; the cane bit won't work so shelf that in the back of the old playbook. (laughing+still picturing it) don't get me wrong, canes can work, but I think if you found yourself in the dangerzone you would rather draw(you know the time when you know it is do or die), and I do believe old marksman that you might know something was up if and when it was up). I'm w/threegun, when that time does come I'll talk to LEO after the fact. I watched a thruhiker come my way from afar, very afar, last summer in montana on the continental divide up near or getting close to canada(I was at a memorial statue at an isolated rest area). He looked like a vagabound but I could tell he was a hiker like my dad. You know I don't even remember when he passed me because the first two times he was still too far away. Was I unaware? No, the guy wasn't a threat. If he was it would've been different. I know you enjoy the debate, but maybe you could possibly try and see other's side instead of trying to disect it so much. It just all depends as pond and I have mentioned(me more than once). I am sorry I offended you when I insulted your walker, all the best - gunz

[youngunz4life]

I meant to say paddling instead of pond at the end - my bad.

[OldMarksman]

This article from John Farnham is a good one to read, heed, and bookmark for future reference.

The application is universal. It may be useful to see how it might apply here.

The first layer ("Nonattendance") is not relevant. We are already at the lake. Nor would I suggest not going, though I agree with others that it was probably not very wise to have gone there alone.

The second layer ("Functional invisibility") does not really apply very well either in this situation because there is no crowd in which to blend. Note, however, that if one were fishing by oneself near a highway with one's fancy truck parked by the shore, the failure to have heeded the functional invisibility rule could prove to have been a serious mistake.

It is at the third layer ("Deselection") that the article begins to apply here. Part of it is bearing and projection of confidence. Another part is deterrence. One cannot help but think that open carry, if it is an available option, might help here.

When I go places where I cannot carry a firearm, I carry a Blackthorn walking stick. While it is an effective fighting implement (and using it in that application would probably constitute the use of deadly force), what I have found is that men walking toward around me or walking toward me from the opposite direction seem to give me a wider berth.

The fourth layer ("Disengagement"), involving, disengagement, separation, and exit, has already been discussed in previous posts. It is the thing to do. Move out of the hiker's path, and if necessary, keep going.

Should that fail, Farnham rightly says that "we must simultaneously be prepared to instantly respond to unlawful force with superior force".

In Minnesota and in Texas, producing a firearm is lawful when it is necessary and when physical, non-deadly force is lawful; not so anywhere else. It would be far better to have a less than lethal option available.

And if one is not? Well, as I pointed out previously, a disparity of force defense might be available for a female or for a person with physical limitations. For others, there is the possibility that one might be able to make an argument on the basis of Dennis Tueller's experiments that one had no alternative but to use deadly force.

Would it work? There's no way of telling for sure, but it is a fact that there are people serving time, and more have done so in the past, after having used deadly force against even very large, dangerous and violent unarmed assailants.

[Capt. Charlie]

This is an excellent subject for discussion, as it's a real life scenario with no easy answers. At this point, that's the only reason it's still open.

However, at almost 150 posts, things are getting repetitive and a few are getting grumpy.

I ask that those few take a few deep breaths and count from one to ten. Otherwise, it'll be a countdown from 10 to 1 .

Even so, every thread has a life span and this one's approaching its end. Counsel should start their closing arguments.

[AH.74]

Your posts throughout this thread have been on the edge of flame baity, AK, don't get on a high horse now. Further, you're also assuming others posting have not had life experiences. Thats an assumption and thats wrong. More importantly, its not relevant.

You may have had an experience in you past where events happened and they didn't prosecute or you were no billed or something. But unless the OP is your life story, its no more relevant than anything else, as it fills in facts not related to the OP.

Zincwarrior, I fail to see how I can be accused of posting flame-baity things- I've mostly been repeating that I believe an attack was occurring in the OP.

And the reason I have taken such interest in this thread, and persisted in the face of being accused as trigger-happy and wanting an excuse to shoot someone at my first opportunity, is precisely because something very similar to the OP scenario happened to me. I find that to be highly relevant.

I appreciate the apology, and offer my own in return. I prefer to stay on good terms with everyone here.

[AH.74]

"Hey, I pointed a gun at this guy for no legal reason, and he didn't do what I wanted... so I'm justified in shooting now, right?"

So, I won't give you or the OP that "fact."

As far as maturity levels, you're right, I shouldn't have been condescending toward your having been attacked. Even though you were belittling my hypotheticals of injured, disoriented, deaf, or non-English speaking folk - ALL of whom have been encountered in wilderness settings, and none of which are actually much of a reach - I should not have belittled your incident. Although it was a one-off, and not statistically significant, it had direct meaning for you.

MLeake- as to the first point, I must still disagree with you. It's not "no legal reason," it's because on the face of it there is an attack occurring and the actor is in fear of imminent harm. If someone can't act to defend themselves in that situation, I don't know what you consider will apply. I remain strong on the viewpoint that I will not let someone physically attack me before I feel able or justified in trying to prevent it from happening.

As far as the second- I appreciate that. And I don't feel I was belittling your input, I was just saying how I thought about it. If you took it that way it was not my intent. I still think to superimpose those variables is misplaced based upon the OP's scenario, and I also did not interpret some of your comments as being of a joking nature. If that had been clear to me I would have responded differently.