March 2, 2009, 08:40 AM | #1 |
Junior Member
Join Date: February 20, 2009
Posts: 5
|
Two attackers, one armed?
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 could see a prosecutor saying "well yeah, you could shoot the guy with the gun/knife, but the other guy was unarmed" thoughts? experiences? |
March 2, 2009, 09:00 AM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2006
Location: Illinois
Posts: 509
|
I would assume that once you have drawn your weapon, the need to shoot might drop dramatically, since you have brought a gun to a knife fight. In my experience, the presence of a superior weapon usually (not always, there is no vaccine for dumbass) causes the thugs to retreat.
__________________
" Of every One-Hundred men, Ten shouldn't even be there, Eighty are nothing but targets, Nine are real fighters... We are lucky to have them...They make the battle. Ah, but the One, One of them is a Warrior... and He will bring the others back." - Heraclitus (circa 500 BC) |
March 2, 2009, 09:12 AM | #3 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,769
|
If the unarmed man is not a immediate threat to life or limb, hold fire. Shoot only to stop the threat.
|
March 2, 2009, 09:21 AM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 12, 2004
Location: Viera, Florida
Posts: 1,340
|
You can't shoot someone who's not a threat to you.
Shooting the guy with the knife is straight self defense. Shooting the guy who's unarmed is wrong from a legal and moral standpoint unless he goes for the dropped knife or he attacks you even after his partner has been shot. Anyone who attacks an armed person who's just shown that they're willing and able to shoot in self defense is either highly trained and capable of winning (or thinks he is) or crazy or dangerously high. In any case, I'd be in fear of death or serious bodily harm and I'd shoot. If the unarmed partner reacts the normal way, by backing off and running, let him go. |
March 2, 2009, 10:03 AM | #5 |
Member
Join Date: January 3, 2008
Posts: 34
|
The knife wielding attacker brings back a memory from my days as a police recruit. We had a drill called shoot don't shoot,( the camera was your eyes, and you had a hand control with a button that was the trigger on your handgun). One of the drills was a suspect who had a knife and was standing app. ten feet from you when he throws it at you. You have only a moment to shoot or not. I shot and I failed.....I was told that once the knife left the creeps hand, he was no longer a threat, and all I had to do was dodge the knife. Sounded crazy to me, and that was back in 1973. So I guess how close the dirt ball is before you light him up is important. Now I'm retired, and even being a former LEO, I hope I never have to face your or any other situation. Because I learned a long time ago, when it comes to a shooting you are going where no man has gone before, and you are on your own.....
Regards, |
March 2, 2009, 10:32 AM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 3, 2008
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 479
|
Depends...
If unarmed BG continues to approach AFTER I shoot his armed buddy, then he's getting shot as well. If unarmed BG freezes, retreats, does pretty much ANYTHING to let me know he doesn't want any part of what his buddy just got then no shoot. Pretty simple.
__________________
-- Sparks AKA J.M. Johnston |
March 2, 2009, 11:07 AM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 5, 2008
Location: Renton, WA
Posts: 462
|
+1 for Sparks
__________________
"Shoot Safetly, Shoot Often and Share Your Sport." Jim Scoutten, Shooting USA Check out my new website: www.shootonthemove.org |
March 2, 2009, 11:33 AM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 3, 2008
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Posts: 1,269
|
Interesting question; certainly worth thinking about.
If there are multple agressors, I always consider them all threats, armed or not. If it gets to the point that I am shooting, I am prepared to shoot all of them/until I run out of ammo. However, that doesn't mean I would, or one should shoot them all. It is going to take a split second's determination as to whether you have to keep shooting, regardless of how/if one is armed. It is going to depend on what they do. If they break and run, they are out of the fight and you stop. If they keep going, so do you. It doesn't matter how each is armed, IMO, as there are weapons already in play. They could go for the weapon to use against you (if they don't have one already.) If there are two attackers w/ guns and one turns to run after the shooting starts, you are no more justified shooting him/her than a fleeing unarmed person. If things escalate to the point guns are drawn, and more to the point, being fired, keep at it as long as any threat persists. If they are unarmed, they know the stakes and are ready to kill by whatever means they've chosen. If anyone breaks from the fight, armed or not, its over and you let them go. |
March 2, 2009, 11:40 AM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 25, 2009
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 220
|
You can only shoot someone who is a threat.
If you draw and they run away, you can't shoot at all. If you draw and they still move toward you, I'd shoot the guy with the knife first. If after that, the other guy runs, you can't shoot him. If you shoot the first guy and then the second keeps moving in, then you could possibly shoot him. It's going to be tricky defending shooting an unarmed guy. He's not a "group of people" attacking you anymore. I could see a DA making a big deal about that, even though personally, I think he'd have just proved he's mentally unstable if he's walking toward you after you just shot his partner. Basically, you will have to reassess after each action you take (after you draw, after you shoot once, after each shot thereafter....) |
March 2, 2009, 11:45 AM | #10 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
If the guy attacks after you shoot his buddy then I can't see how it could NOT be justified. What are you supposed to do, put your gun down and box with him? I'd say retreat is preferred if available (obviously), otherwise you're clear to shoot if he attacks.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
March 2, 2009, 12:38 PM | #11 |
Staff In Memoriam
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
|
Japle, don't pass bad advise without clearly stating it is your own opinion ONLY!
The presence of a knife or gun are obvious weapons but it does not need to involve a man made weapon to make a person a threat to life and limb... At least not where I live IIRC IMHO YMMV!!! Brent |
March 2, 2009, 04:19 PM | #12 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Also, not to quibble, I don't see a problem with two quick shots before assessing the situation. |
|
March 2, 2009, 04:27 PM | #13 |
Member
Join Date: December 6, 2008
Location: Key West
Posts: 24
|
It is interesting that most of the responses to this situation are heavily biased by the potential action of the District Attorney rather than purely self defense. This is a problem brought about by the rampant increase in political correctness in our society.
When you are personally attacked, adrenaline and the fear of being badly hurt are front and center, and I personally believe that I will not put my self defense actions second while stoping to decide what the DA might do in between each action. This leads me to suggest that the firearms community needs to spend a lot of effort to educate the unaware public how law abiding citizens have a right to defend ourselves from law breaking thugs - armed or not. One way to educate the public (and DA's) is to widely disseminate stories of the many times that CCW citizens have saved family, friends and neighbors from brutal attacks by law breaking individuals. This way, if we are attacked, we can focus on self defense. Capt. Art |
March 2, 2009, 04:37 PM | #14 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 12, 2004
Location: Viera, Florida
Posts: 1,340
|
Quote:
This is an internet forum and the OP didn't hire me as a legal consultant. It's my opinion that he's probably smart enough to assume it's my opinion. Last edited by Japle; March 2, 2009 at 07:12 PM. |
|
March 2, 2009, 04:38 PM | #15 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
March 2, 2009, 04:55 PM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 23, 2006
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 5,210
|
I think they should both be subject to getting shot. Look at it like this: Two guys set out to rob you, one armed the other not. They confront you and the armed guy kills you, they take the money and run. Now if and when they got caught, the guy without the weapon will still face capital murder charges (initially) In the eyes of the law the accomplice is just as guilty as the assaliant.
|
March 2, 2009, 05:10 PM | #17 |
Junior member
Join Date: February 24, 2008
Location: orlando,fl
Posts: 76
|
i would have to agree
nicely put teifman
|
March 2, 2009, 05:10 PM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 10, 2008
Location: East Texas
Posts: 1,326
|
Shoot armed BG, if the BG that appears unarmed either becomes armed or takes one more step towards you, send a pair to his COM.
If caught in the legal battle I'd argue the fact that I've already used lethal force against the armed BG, so the "unarmed" BG must have really bad things planned, otherwise he would retreat or at least stop his attack.
__________________
“Nature intended me for the tranquil pursuits of science, by rendering them my supreme delight.” - Thomas Jefferson |
March 2, 2009, 05:49 PM | #19 | |
Junior member
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,769
|
Quote:
|
|
March 2, 2009, 06:05 PM | #20 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 23, 2006
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 5,210
|
Quote:
|
|
March 2, 2009, 06:57 PM | #21 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 27, 2009
Location: Roatan, Honduras
Posts: 114
|
BG#1 goes down center mass
If the sucking and gargling sounds coming from his buddy are not enough deterrent and he starts fumbling for the dropped knife or in his pockets he goes down too. If he panics and runs away I would not shoot him in the back, better to run than tango with the MagSafe .44 specials |
March 2, 2009, 07:29 PM | #22 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 3, 2009
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 321
|
Quote:
[The State of California has determined that these comments contain "tongue in cheek" and may be bad for your health] |
|
March 2, 2009, 07:31 PM | #23 | |||||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
However, I think that in general, the responses discuss the question, "what is self defense, and what is not?". That question must, by its very nature, be addressed by discussing the law in the locality at hand and how prosecutors, judges, and juries are likely to judge various events. I think there have been some good answers here. Of course, the answer will be very situation specific. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Here are some resources that should prove helpful toward that end. They're too lengthy to cut and paste here. It would be a good idea to bookmark, print, and study them--if possible, start before loading your gun: http://www.useofforce.us/ http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/01c1...ocument&Click= http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...2_StudyDay.htm http://www.corneredcat.com/ It's also a very good idea to get some training, and perhaps to invest in an hour or two of consultation with a qualified local attorney. That won't be the one who does wills and bankruptcy filings, in most cases. Quote:
Actually, the number of times CCW citizens draw guns in self defense is probably pretty small, and the number of times they fire when in harms way is a whole lot smaller. From the standpoint of the public, I think what they need to know is probably two-fold: that they cannot expect the police to provide them with personal protection--that's up to them; and that even if they (the public) choose to not carry, the fact that they may be carrying concealed makes them safer. |
|||||
March 2, 2009, 07:38 PM | #24 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
It may be that in some situations that argument might prevail, I don't know. But that reasoning having been posted beforehand could prove most troublesome for the defense. |
|
March 2, 2009, 08:40 PM | #25 | |
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
|
Quote:
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|