Two attackers, one armed?

[Careby]

No more than any other holster. The gun is not part of the holster. It's not a "wallet gun" or some such thing. It's a gun in a wallet style (pocket) holster.

As I said, I'm no expert. It looks like it was designed to allow firing the gun without removing it from the holster, otherwise why is the trigger exposed? And I can imagine a reasonable person might assume it was designed to make a gun look like a wallet (enough so that you yourself described it as one, and implied you would present it as one), and it looks a lot like "wallet guns" I have seen that were classified by ATF to be AOW's. I would add that I personally think some of the arbitrary details of the NFA are ridiculous.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Let's say there's two robbers that stop you in a parking lot. one displaying a knife with the cliche "gimme yo money!" ... do you treat them as one threat and shoot at both (disparity of force), can you safely assume both are armed from a legal standpoint?

I'm surprised, or not I guess, no one has asked for more information before advocating "smokin" both "perps" with 45's akimbo. The situation seems very vague, is it dark or the middle of the day? Is this a crowded Wal-Mart parking lot or you are alone 20 miles from anywhere? How close is the store/building? How close is your car? Are these kids or pro-wrestler looking guys? There is far too little information presented for anyone to make a decision about the application of deadly force.

Why do the criminals in these threads always use such poor English? Perhaps we should carry hardcover copies of "The St. Martin's Handbook". Mine is 798 pages, only measures 8.5 x 6 inches and weighs about two pounds. One could administer quite the beating with it, then leave it with the criminal so he could improve his English skills! No concealed carry license required!

Presenting a knife and asking for your money is not justification to kill two people, or even one. Did they duct tape your mouth and tie your feet together prior to their request? Tell them no, loudly, and run if need be. (handicapped excepted) Is it the "manly" thing to do? No, but neither is being some guy's boyfriend in federal prison. Even in states where you are not required to retreat, why in the world would you risk everything by shooting someone unless it was absolutely the last option possible?

This the wrong board for my opinion, I realize, but I want to ask a few of you to re-read your posts and think about the situation. With very little to go on, many folks advocated shooting one, sometimes both people in question. I hope this is just internet bravado and not an indication of truly how you think, because; if so, you may just have a surprise coming if you ever do find yourself in a similar situation, and react the way you posted.

I'm off to Wal-Mart in a few minutes, so I'm going to make a makeshift holster for my St. Martin's Handbook, in case anyone needs any "English lessons" while I'm there....

[Glenn E. Meyer]

This is not the wrong board for suggesting something other than immediate shooting. Reasoned responses to a situation is what sophisticated training and discussion is about.

The arguments about compliance usually center on:

1. What is the acceptable risk level for any action and the evaluation of the consequences?

2. If compliance would lead to a better outcome, some people are offended by that as they feel compliance is a blow to their ego and world view of themselves.

3. That leads to posturing as compared to realistic discussion of risk.

If you factor out ego, then we can discuss what leads to a best practical outcome as compared to an ego driven outcome.

[Brian Pfleuger]

There is far too little information presented for anyone to make a decision about the application of deadly force.

I was operating under the assumption that, in this particular case, the OP had already decided that it was necessary to shoot the first BG and was curious about opinions on what to do about the second guy.

This the wrong board for my opinion...

Quite the contrary actually. Especially considering that you are apparently able to express yourself without abusing others.

[David Armstrong]

David is assuming that the wallet is going to be the only loss. That very well may be a fatal assumption.

David makes very few assumptions, and really doesn't like when people attribute assumptions to him that he hasn't made and would not make. No place has David assumed the wallet is going to be the only loss. David has suggested you try the easy way out first to see if that works. Please do not try to put words in David's mouth. Thank you.

[David Armstrong]

You can calculate the results for 1,000,000 incidents that have happened previously, but you can't predict with ANY certainty what THIS badguy is going to do THIS time. It doesn't work like that.

Actually, you can. That is the problem with people trying to discuss statistical analysis who apparently don't understand statistical analysis. You can make a prediction and you can do it with a very defined level of certainty. That doesn't mean you should ignore or disregard the outliers, it simply means you can make an informed decision on what is likely to happen, if you want to.

What they did doesn't matter, unless ALL of them were confronted by the SAME badguy(s) under the exact SAME conditions.

Again, that is just not an accurate statement.

[nate45]

You draw your .45 ACP and gun the knife wielder down. Then you tell the other one that you like him and thats why you decided to shoot him last.

[David Armstrong]

This the wrong board for my opinion, I realize,

Actually there are several here on this board that oppose the "shoot early, shoot often, and shoot whenever you can" mentality and regularly recommend a more reasoned and rational approach. Welcome aboard!

[45Marlin carbine]

when in a hurry to shoot always hold a little low on the target.

[Double Naught Spy]

There is far too little information presented for anyone to make a decision about the application of deadly force.

Let's see, there are two attackers and one is threatening you through the brandishing of a knife and telling you to give him the money?

Let's see, opportunity, ability, and intent. Yep, the necessary information is there for making a decision.

David makes very few assumptions, and really doesn't like when people attribute assumptions to him that he hasn't made and would not make. No place has David assumed the wallet is going to be the only loss. David has suggested you try the easy way out first to see if that works. Please do not try to put words in David's mouth. Thank you.

David assumes that trying the easy way out of compliance is prudent in a life threatening situation as per his suggestion that it be tried first. David then also assumes that if his compliance suggestion does not work that there will be time to re-evaluate the situation and come up with a secondary choice in time to save one's life.

I am suggesting there may not be time for such niceties being as the threat is established.

[doh_312]

I agree with the Spy. The first guy is gettin hot lead. While drawing and firing, as per training, I'll be putting distance between me and the BGs. I'll reassess the second guy. If he wants to back off and retreat then by all means, go and live. If he reaches for something on his person, or advances on me, he'll probably share the same fate as his buddy. I consider him a threat due to his associations, but he hasn't presented a weapon. This scenario strikes me as a parking lot situation, just me and the BGs no innocents in danger of bullet pass through. At least that is the way I imagine it so that is how I dealt with it.

[Japle]

Presenting a knife and asking for your money is not justification to kill two people, or even one. Did they duct tape your mouth and tie your feet together prior to their request? Tell them no, loudly, and run if need be. (handicapped excepted) Is it the "manly" thing to do? No, but neither is being some guy's boyfriend in federal prison. Even in states where you are not required to retreat, why in the world would you risk everything by shooting someone unless it was absolutely the last option possible?

While I have no desire to shoot anyone, someone who shows me a knife while demanding money has a real good chance of getting shot. He's certainly going to get a look at my gun.
If he doesn't back down IMMEDIATLY, in other words, if he continues to act in a hostile or threatening manner or advances on me, I'm going to shoot.

Run? Turn my back on someone who's threatening me with a knife? Not even if I were a track star.

His actions put him in that position. He made the decisions that led up to being on the wrong end of a gun. If he continues to make bad decisions, that's on him. I don't owe a violent criminal any consideration at all. I do owe it to my family to come home alive and unhurt.

I won't shoot if I don't have to, but it's up to the BG.

[armsmaster270]

If he is close enough to use the knife seems as if he is willing to use it he is going into a body bag. I would rather drop the hammer on this miscreant than see him stab an old lady a week later. If his buddy stays out of it he either walks or goes to jail.

[OldMarksman]

Let's see, opportunity, ability, and intent. Yep, the necessary information is there for making a decision.

That might be true if the thugs have approached a peace officer, for whom ability, opportunity, and jeopardy are sufficient.

For the citizen, there is the added factor: necessity.

Consider this:

http://www.useofforce.us/3aojp/

Preclusion
Preclusion is not so much an individual consideration as it is an all-encompassing lens through which to view your actions. More complex than the others, it is nevertheless just as important. It is the idea that, whatever the situation, you are expected to use force only as a last resort—that is, only when the circumstances preclude all other options.

In other words, even when the ability, opportunity, and jeopardy criteria are satisfied, and knowing that you must clearly do something to protect yourself, the use of force, particularly lethal force, may only be that “something” if you have no other safe options.

And this:

http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...2_StudyDay.htm

AOJ is the traditional model used by those who must defend themselves while completing their sworn duty obligation to confront VCA. A model more appropriate to the non-duty sworn Practitioner who is compelled through necessity to confront a VCA involves avoidance, disengagement escape and evade.

Now, I would not rely solely on compliance in a street situation, but tossing a wallet toward the attackers might diffuse the threat and if it did not, that fact would substantiate the need for deadly force while buying time.

Now, it could well be that shooting the armed perp without delay would seem necessary in the situation, depending on his actions, demeanor, distance, etc. Go for it if you must, but remember that what will follow for you will probably be the worst period of your life.

And remember that you will remain at risk legally from the criminal standpoint until and unless you are actually tried and acquitted, and that doesn't address civil liability or the risk of the perp's kid brother coming at you or yours for revenge, any time, any where.

Not for me if I can avoid it.

[orionengnr]

If you shoot the attacker with the knife and his buddy is just standing there then shooting him is murder, IMHO.

Opinion is right, and worth exactly what you paid.

Find out what your state law is, and act accordingly. In CA or NY, you may have to take the knife from the guy and cut your own throat to satisfy the bliss-ninnies.

In other places, you may be able to use the "reasonable person" model. Let's see, the "other guy" is at the very least an accessory before the fact, with means, motiive and opportunity.

Now that I am on the far side of 50, on the short side of 6', on the light side of 150 lbs and with a few "life-changing" surgeries behind me, H2H is not much of an option and running is not much of an option either. Fortunately, I no longer live in CA. Actually, it's not by luck, it's by choice.

[hogdogs]

"toss a fake wallet" "make like..."
Sorry folks i am no actor nor poker player... I call a spade a spade and expect the same from the offender. I will take you as genuine in your presentation until I see you are bluffing... I don't bluff and suck at "reading the tells" of a violent situation. Knife equals threat to life and limb the same as just bowing up in my face. I expect to be stuck or beaten and will retaliate with a wrath most cannot fathom. I am no bully nor karate kid but if past confrontation is relative I foresee me on your back with you in a rear choke with the backs of my thighs locking my arms padlock tight and at the same time pushing the back of your head and shoulders deeper into my clench... Short of caving in my head I cannot be shaken off...
Once out cold I will not release...
See... I am not a CCW carrier. Not a gun anyway... But lethal force is not limited to a pistol. If I have time the knife will be my first approach. Commando I am not... Actually I am scared to death of a butt whoopin, let alone a knife wound or GSW. But I am not afraid of any human and feel my mental state is more secure than many if not most folks. Non of these thugs are 100% prepared to be assaulted by a little unarmed man but they are ready to run you down like a lion after a wildebeest!
When faced off, even the baddest of predators realize that the prey may have an ace up their sleeve! I am a natural born predator as all humans were intended... Some choose to relinquish this status in exchange for the expectation that they are better off protected as prey animals...
Sorry to ramble but if this sounds goofy to you I am not able to apologize for that...
Brent

[obxned]

In the Conan movies, he often asks "Who dies first?" Here the answer is easy.

[Hondo11]

Actually, you can. That is the problem with people trying to discuss statistical analysis who apparently don't understand statistical analysis. You can make a prediction and you can do it with a very defined level of certainty. That doesn't mean you should ignore or disregard the outliers, it simply means you can make an informed decision on what is likely to happen, if you want to.

The problem with people making statistical analyses is when they try to apply them to things that are far to subjective in nature and far too influenced by things that aren't quantifiable. And when they always try to make things more complicated than they really are because they think that gives them an advantage in the argument.

You can calculate the percentage of times that a certain outcome had happened in the past, but that has absolutely no bearing on the actions/mindset/intent of THIS badguy at THIS time. None.

You can say that 87% of OTHER people who have complied with OTHER badguys had a favorable outcome, but you cannot say that you have an 87% chance of a favorable outcome if you comply because THIS badguy isn't THAT badguy and THIS situation isn't one of those other ones.

I have been the victim of an armed robbery 2 times in 2 consecutive days. Both badguys had priors and in their previous crimes, they injured (shot and stabbed) their victims, who did not resist. Apparently, had I complied, I would have fallen into the 13% two times in two days (assuming I lived to the 2nd day).

Yeah, you can use the numbers to look at overall outcomes, but there is no way to predict which guy you're going to get...the one who's in the 87% or one who's on the 13% side. You can say, "87% of people in the past have had a favorable outcome through compliance", but you can't take one specific incident and say, "There's an 87% chance that guy won't hurt you if you comply." You don't know which side of the statistical fence THAT badguy is on.

Take lottery drawings as an example. You can say that, "In the past 1000 drawings, 10% of the time the number 11 has been drawn as the first number." But that doesn't mean that there's a 10% chance that the number 11 will be drawn first in THIS drawing. There's a 1 in 50, or 2%, chance of that happening...assuming the numbers are 1-50.

[Dr. Strangelove]

(shakes head)

Folks, this is real life, not the movies or television. I stand by my post stating that someone merely showing you a knife and asking for your money in an open parking lot is not grounds for shooting that person. There are many other options before even drawing your weapon, starting with simply telling the knife wielder to go away.

The majority of posts on this topic have been responsible, but a few disappoint me. Please do some research and think a little about the position you are putting yourself into when you just draw and fire. Maybe they brought a knife to a gunfight, but you just brought a gun to a knife fight, and you had better be ready to explain why you just killed two people. Are you ready to lose your home, your land, your life's savings, even your freedom? What is your family going to do while you are being some bad man's love slave in a penal institution? (Sorry, couldn't resist that one...) Even if you win the criminal case, you may still lose the certain civil lawsuits brought by the decedents families.

There are no "good shoots", just unfortunate situations that do come down to bullets being the only answer.

Welcome aboard!

Welcome aboard the, err, board? Good funny!

[hogdogs]

Dr.strangelove, Simply ordering a florida driver out of his vehicle is grounds to be shot! No weapon needs be shown... If out of the vehicle (parking lot) and approached, I am full within my rights to use lethal force, if BG even insinuates he intends harm... For me to be found out of my bounds he better be quite a distance away... If he doesn't need to yell for me to hear him... he is close enuff for me to fear for my life... KNIFE OR NOT!!!! All he has to say is "*female dog* I will mess you up" and make forward progress and he is legally threatening my life or health! demand of money with weapon in hand or accompanying one who is, is also a treat to my life or health! Violent crimes are finally being seen as a threat to life and health rather than an occupation in florida!
Brent

[hogdogs]

Let me also add... say I shoot bg #1 and BG number 2 flees... he gets caught later... He can face FIRST DEGREE or SECOND DEGREE MURDER charges for his knife wielding buddies death at my hand... Nice they finally started putting us in control of our own survival and at the same time make it hold far higher legal ramifications for them.
Brent

[Dr. Strangelove]

Hogdogs,

First, I've been enjoying your postings for a while now, we need to trade posts in the hunting forum, not here. I've got a funny FL hog hunting story I might pm you later if you're interested. I'm not attacking you or anyone else personally, please don't think I am. [end of comments specifically to Hogdogs]

I moved here to Athens, GA after seven years in Bradenton, FL; I'm well aware of the Florida "no retreat" laws. I'm not arguing the legality or morality of shooting someone in the circumstances described, I'm not a lawyer or a preacher. I'm not even arguing right or wrong here, I'm just saying if you want to go around shooting folks, even legally justified, you had better be prepared to deal with the consequences.

The small minority of posters of the "guns a blazin" answer to any challenge (in an open parking lot? Seriously? Puuuutttt Dooowwn the remote. Back slooowly away from the television. No more action movies for a month, Mr. Mitty) [Points if you understood that reference] seem to rabidly defend their proposed actions. Have at it, blaze away, but understand that by doing so you are probably putting yourself more at risk than if you had behaved more responsibly. Escalating what could, in all probability, be avoided in the first place into deadly force is just irresponsible and foolish, even if it is legal.

[nate45]

I think you are taking things too far the opposite direction. Hopefully no one wants to shoot another human being, but I think you underestimate how fast someone could mortally wound you with a knife.

I would at least draw my hand gun and if they turned and ran away, I would let them go. However even the slightest menacing move in my direction would result in the person holding the deadly weapon being shot.

Are you aware of the 21 foot rule?

Do you have any experience seeing serious knife wounds?

Any one foolish enough, brave enough, crazy enough to try and rob someone with a knife is likely to try and cut them also.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Nate 45,

Yours was a reasonable and well thought out question, hopefully I will answer in the same manner.

The reaction you describe is a mature and well thought out response to the situation. Answering your questions, I am aware of the 21 foot rule, but I have no experience with serious knife wounds. Given the vagueness of the situation presented, the intent of the person with the knife is questionable. Have they made the choice to present a deadly weapon - sure. Does this mean they intend to use it? Maybe, maybe not. A couple of kids in daylight or well lit highly traveled parking lot? Tell them to "buzz off" and escalate further if needed. Certainly, being ready to draw your own weapon is reasonable. More capable and determined criminals in a lonely parking garage? Warn them as you draw a weapon, use it if they don't cooperate. There is just not enough information given in the original post to make an informed decision.

For everyone else:

I've taken up enough bandwidth in this thread, I thought briefly of posting my own, but there are countless scenarios in this section already, one more will only degenerate into the same "kill 'em" vs. "show restraint" this one has become. I obviously have different opinions than some, mine are no more right or wrong or important than yours. If anyone wants to discuss my opinion further in a mature manner, feel free to pm me. If it's an interesting debate, we can make a thread out of it. I'm not interested in debating endless scenarios or the "guns a blazin" type comments.

[OldMarksman]

Presenting a knife and asking for your money is not justification to kill two people, or even one.

The OP asked about the legal ramifications of shooting two people, and I think Peetzakiller offered some worthwhile thoughts earlier.

I disagree with your assertion that one is not justified in using deadly force against a robber with a knife, assuming that he is close to you.

That does not mean that I would do so except as a last resort. If he's close enough, my gun will be in my hand, and if he rushes, I just don't see an alternative to firing.

However, depending on the situation, the opportunity may present itself to toss a weighted money clip with, say, forty+ dollars in paper money his way while telling him to get back. If what the perp is after is money to buy drugs, gasoline, or food, that and the ominous little red laser dot may save the day. And the doomsday option remains if that doesn't work.

That's a lot more economical than getting into a situation in which you could be forced to come up with $25,000 to $100,000 in fees for lawyers and expert witnesses. And that way you'll still have your gun.

Even in states where you are not required to retreat, why in the world would you risk everything by shooting someone unless it was absolutely the last option possible?

For many people retreat is not reasonably possible anyway, but you are right about the risk. Suppose you fire and the man goes down. There's the evidence: (1) forensic evidence, including bullets and wounds--all that does is establish that you have shot someone, and it could work against your account of the incident; (2) the knife--that doesn't prove your story, but it should lend some credence. Perhaps there are witnesses; suppose the witnesses say, "I heard two shots and saw a man with a gun and a man on the ground." Won't help much. Maybe there was a security camera--perhaps helpful, perhaps not. There's your testimony--what makes that credible? Ever been cross-examined?

The point is, you do not enter the courtroom wearing a white hat. You have shot someone, and it's up to you to present evidence that your actions were justified. They may have been, but that's not enough.

And if the perp survives? There's his testimony-and you would probably be surprised how those guys clean up. I've been on juries, and one cannot distinguish between the good guy and the bad, or between the truthful and the liar, without evidence.

Now, maybe it won't go that far and maybe it will--but you will forever remain at risk from the criminal standpoint if it does not. And then there's "the rest of the story", and that's all downside.