when to pull?

[shaunpain]

It's really interesting to see the myriad of opinions on when to pull your gun (why this has focused on when to shoot is beyond me, as that was not the OP's query). I think the majority of the good people on this board share my sentiment that I have absolutely ZERO desire in my life to have to pull a gun, much less shoot someone. Talk about shooting to kill? When the Chinese invade our country, I'll shoot to kill. Until then, I only have interest in killing paper. You should only pull your gun as a last resort, and like many posters have also chimed in, you should only pull when you have to shoot.

My first resort would be to try and talk the guy down. I would also try to disarm IF POSSIBLE. I would try to get HIS gun, not pull mine. Remember, we can't hypothesize what kind of situation you will be in and what options you may have available to you. You just *know* when you're on the short end of the stick. Training will help you better assess your situation (or at least thinking about possible scenarios) when the chips are down, and you will have to sort through a variety of outcomes with a moment's notice.

In most cases, it's probably best to give them what they want. I'm not a rich man and I work hard for my money, so taking even a few hundred bucks out of my pocket is not something that would sit well with me. I'm not pulling a gun, but I'm not giving you my wallet either. I have been held up before and insisted that I had no money (I did) until he got really frustrated with me and walked away. People who rob here actually jump people (Chicago) and brick you in the back of the head. This requires one decoy, and one to flank. This has happened to many friends of mine. They don't need a gun for this, but they get your money every time.

[Pianoguy]

In Wisconsin, if you can show that you had a reasonable expectiation that you were in danger of losing your life or incurring grave bodily harm, you can justify drawing your weapon and using it if need be. Every case is a little different depending on the relative abilities of the attacker and the victim. But you can't draw to only protect your property - human life is valued more than someone's wallet - if there is no clear indication that the attacker was going to hurt you. Unfortunatley you can't just guess - you have to be able to point to a reason that you felt your life was in danger - somehow the person has to actually threaten in some manner that could be considered deadly force that can be met with deadily force. If you pull a gun and can't show that you were in danger, YOU are the one threatening deadliy force and can be considered to be performing the criminal act.

I carry two wallets, the bigger one with money and some junk stuff of no value, the smaller and less obvious with the credit cards, drivers license (CC license!), etc. I also carry some pepper spray that I can pull out easily if someone asks for the wallet. The gun stays put. if I did pull it out I would hope that the person would have enough sense to give it up and back off. I would not immediately shoot unless it was obvious that the person was in the act of attacking me and was not going to stop.

However reality is messy so who knows what would happen. Just don't go looking for trouble in the first place. Use your head and think before going places where hindsight would tell you that being there wasn't too bright.

[TexasJustice7]

PianoGuy: In Wisconsin, if you can show that you had a reasonable expectiation that you were in danger of losing your life or incurring grave bodily harm, you can justify drawing your weapon and using it if need be. Every case is a little different depending on the relative abilities of the attacker and the victim. But you can't draw to only protect your property

Hopefully this will not happen to me, as I am an old and disabled. You can use deadly force to protect property in Texas, and you do not have to engage in martial arts, or a fist fight to stop an unarmed robber. I might surrender a TV set, but my wallet contains my money, my debit cards, and my disabled daughter's Texas benefits card. I will draw in such a case and whether they want to take it anyway will determine the outcome. I will not live from now on with an identity theft problem if I can prevent it. If I were not willing to draw in such a case, then I would not even bother to have gotten a permit nor would I carry a gun. At my age, engaging in a physical confrontation is life theatening, and my assailant would probably take my guns & use them on someone else. We have no duty in Texas to surrender our wallet to an armed nor an unarmed assailant, nor to take a beating either.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by TexasJustice7

...You can use deadly force to protect property in Texas,...

[1] Sometimes, under some circumstances. Know exactly what the law says and find ways to conform your conduct to what the law permits.

[2] Everywhere is not Texas. Everyone is not in Texas. And even people who normally live in Texas might find themselves elsewhere with a need to defend themselves. Understand the law of wherever you might be at the time. Understand the lowest common denominator that applies everywhere -- the use of lethal force is justifiable when a reasonable and prudent person in like circumstances would conclude it's necessary to prevent otherwise unavoidable, immediate death or grave bodily injury to an innocent.

[3] Wherever you are and whatever the legal standards for justifying the use of lethal force in self defense, if you use lethal force and claim you were justified, you will need to be able to articulate why and how those standards were satisfied.

[Nathan]

To answer the OP's original question, you draw in preparation to shoot. Drawing to scare is a bad idea.

In response to the mugger question, when asked for my wallet, a stern no, is probably still legal in all 50. Any effort to take the wallet, would be another issue.

[TexasJustice7]

FrankEaton: 2] Everywhere is not Texas. Everyone is not in Texas. And even people who normally live in Texas might find themselves elsewhere with a need to defend themselves. Understand the law of wherever you might be at the time. Understand the lowest common denominator that applies everywhere -- the use of lethal force is justifiable when a reasonable and prudent person in like circumstances would conclude it's necessary to prevent otherwise unavoidable, immediate death or grave bodily injury to an innocent.

Very true, everywhere is not Texas. I travel to Oklahoma & Lousiana, on rare occasion Arkansas. Although the laws of those states are similar I am particularly careful in traveling to Lousiana, as there I travel to federal property. So there I just don't take a handgun. Had some other veterans
get angry with me because I stated that I never stop, not even to buy a coke in Lousiana. I buy my all my gas in Texas before I leave, all the food I will need before leaving Texas which increases the chance that I will not be a victim by not getting out of my vehicle, till; I arrive at my destination.

Hope to never see Texas & the USA separate, because I am not sure I would leave Texas. I do try to read up on the laws in Arkansas & Oklahoma on the very rare occasion I travel there just across the Texas line. I am always
relieved when I come back across the Texas state line.

[totaldla]

Originally Posted by totaldla

...Every state considers employing a handgun to be lethal force and the outcome of such force is death....

Originally Posted by Frank Ettin

Yes, a handgun is lethal force. But the outcome of the use of lethal force is not necessarily death. In the law, lethal force is viewed as force likely to cause death or great bodily injury.

Are you saying that you are holding out hope that your use of lethal force will not result in death? If so, then why are you using lethal force in the first place? Better think that through.

Originally Posted by Frank Ettin

Effectively stopping an assailant who has manifest the intent and ability to cause you death or great bodily injury will most likely require that you use a degree of force likely to cause death or great bodily injury. But that is not the same thing as intending to kill.

Seriously? You shoot at a BG and want to tell me with a straight face that you meant for him to live long and prosper?

Originally Posted by totaldla

...From a criminal law perspective, you have demonstrated intent to kill when you employed a firearm...

Originally Posted by Frank Ettin

Provide some citation to proper legal authority for that contention. It is, in fact, not true.

Lets think for a moment, suppose I pointed a banana at you and said "Give me all your hope and change!" - pretty difficult to determine my intentions right? Lets replace the banana with a gun. Now what do you think about my intentions? Suddenly it becomes more clear - why? Because pointing a firearm at you, (a device designed and employed to kill), has signaled what a reasonable person would interpret as my intention to kill.

Point a banana at a Cop and you'll get checked out. Point a firearm at a Cop and you'll get your own body bag. That's my "citation to proper legal authority" for today.


Quote:
Originally Posted by totaldla

Originally Posted by totaldla

...I'm harping on this because "shoot to stop", a PC phrase, can mislead folks in a bad way...

Originally Posted by Frank Ettin

Not true. All established trainers and school talk in terms of shooting to stop.

Yep and everybody gravitates towards the biggest caliber, the nastiest hollowpoints and trains for a magazine full of center of mass hits because they want the bad guy to just "stop". Yep. Uh-huh. Sure. You-betcha

Originally Posted by Michael4yah

...You cant draw a weapon and have all these "Less than lethal" ideas running through your head...

Originally Posted by Frank Ettin

You have completely failed to understand the point. No one has suggested any "less than lethal" ideas. If one effectively employs a gun to stop a potentially lethal threat, the death of the assailant is a highly likely result. But that's not necessarily the intended result. The intended result is that the attack is stopped. If the attack stops and the assailant survives, your legitimate purpose has been fulfilled.

Frank, I believe Michael4yah is exactly right. Using a lethal weapon is serious business and if folks don't want to belly up to the bar and be clear about what they are doing, ... well then I don't think folks should be carrying weapons - there are non-lethal options.

[MLeake]

totaldla, you seem to be deliberately missing the point: a stated goal of shooting to stop is very different, in the eyes of the law, than a stated goal of shooting to kill.

It goes to intent and mens rea. If you don't understand the concept, please look up those terms.

As far as your contention that people who train to shoot to stop, and who state a goal of shooting to stop, are in some kind of denial about deadly force - you might want to check gunshot wound survival stats. They may be higher than you think.

If I were to have to employ deadly force, I accept that it might have fatal effect. If so, that would be an unfortunate necessity. OTOH, should I employ deadly force, and stop the assailant without killing him, that would be fine with me. The death of the BG in such a scenario would have been an acceptable risk, but not the goal.

It's a matter of desired end state.

Your arguments are going to paint you in a very negative light, should you ever draw and fire in self defense.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by totaldla

Are you saying that you are holding out hope that your use of lethal force will not result in death? If so, then why are you using lethal force in the first place? Better think that through....

If the use of lethal force is going to be legally justified, the defender is at reasonable risk of death or grave bodily injury if the attacker is not stopped promptly. That will require significant force.

There are four ways in which shooting an assailant stops a fight:

1. psychological -- "I'm shot, it hurts, I don't want to get shot any more."
   
   
2. massive blood loss depriving the muscles and brain of oxygen and thus significantly impairing their ability to function
   
   
3. breaking major skeletal support structures
   
   
4. damaging the central nervous system.

Depending on someone just giving up because he's been shot is iffy. Probably most fights are stopped that way, but some aren't.

Breaking major skeletal structures can quickly impair mobility, but someone with a gun can still shoot.

Hits to the central nervous system are sure and quick, but the CNS presents a small and uncertain target.

The most common and sure physiological way in which shooting someone stops him is blood loss -- depriving the brain and muscles of oxygen and nutrients, thus impairing the ability of the brain and muscles to function. Blood loss is facilitated by (1) large holes causing tissue damage; (2) getting the holes in the right places to damage major blood vessels or blood bearing organs; and (3) adequate penetration to get those holes into the blood vessels and organs which are fairly deep in the body. The problem is that blood loss takes time. People have continued to fight effectively when gravely, even mortally, wounded. So things that can speed up blood loss, more holes, bigger holes, better placed holes, etc., help.

Stopping the assailant might result in his death. But the goal is not to kill him. The goal is to stop him.

Originally Posted by totaldla

...Seriously? You shoot at a BG and want to tell me with a straight face that you meant for him to live long and prosper?..

What I mean for him to do, and want him to do, is stop.

Originally Posted by totaldla

...Lets think for a moment, suppose I pointed a banana at you and said "Give me all your hope and change!" - pretty difficult to determine my intentions right? Lets replace the banana with a gun. Now what do you think about my intentions? Suddenly it becomes more clear - why? Because pointing a firearm at you, (a device designed and employed to kill), has signaled what a reasonable person would interpret as my intention to kill.

Point a banana at a Cop and you'll get checked out. Point a firearm at a Cop and you'll get your own body bag. That's my "citation to proper legal authority" for today....

In other words you just made up that business about intent under the law and you have no idea what you are talking about.

Originally Posted by totaldla

Yep and everybody gravitates towards the biggest caliber, the nastiest hollowpoints and trains for a magazine full of center of mass hits because they want the bad guy to just "stop". Yep. Uh-huh. Sure. You-betcha

[1] So obviously you have no training since you're unfamiliar with what is taught.

[2] As for biggest caliber and hollow points, see my discussion of wound physiology, above.

Originally Posted by =totaldla

...Using a lethal weapon is serious business and if folks don't want to belly up to the bar and be clear about what they are doing, ...

Yes, it is serious business. And for you to suggest that those of us who understand the legal and ethical issues, and shoot to stop rather than to kill, don't take it serious, is an insult that is inappropriate for this forum.

And your chest thumping flippancy suggests to me that you really don't fully appreciate how serious this all is.