The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old March 2, 2009, 08:40 AM   #1
Swampy459
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?
Swampy459 is offline  
Old March 2, 2009, 09:00 AM   #2
SundownRider
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)
SundownRider is offline  
Old March 2, 2009, 09:12 AM   #3
Creature
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.
Creature is offline  
Old March 2, 2009, 09:21 AM   #4
Japle
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.
Japle is offline  
Old March 2, 2009, 10:03 AM   #5
ltcdoty
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,
ltcdoty is offline  
Old March 2, 2009, 10:32 AM   #6
Sparks2112
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
Sparks2112 is offline  
Old March 2, 2009, 11:07 AM   #7
oldkim
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
oldkim is offline  
Old March 2, 2009, 11:33 AM   #8
The Great Mahoo
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.
The Great Mahoo is offline  
Old March 2, 2009, 11:40 AM   #9
PoorSoulInJersey
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....)
PoorSoulInJersey is offline  
Old March 2, 2009, 11:45 AM   #10
Brian Pfleuger
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
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old March 2, 2009, 12:38 PM   #11
hogdogs
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
hogdogs is offline  
Old March 2, 2009, 04:19 PM   #12
OldMarksman
Staff
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
Quote:
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....)
That sounds reasonable, assuming that avoidance, disengagement, escape, and evasion are no longer viable options.

Also, not to quibble, I don't see a problem with two quick shots before assessing the situation.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old March 2, 2009, 04:27 PM   #13
twocan
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
twocan is offline  
Old March 2, 2009, 04:37 PM   #14
Japle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 12, 2004
Location: Viera, Florida
Posts: 1,340
Quote:
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
Yeah, right. Whatever you say.

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.
Japle is offline  
Old March 2, 2009, 04:38 PM   #15
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
Quote:
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.
We do not however, either morally or legally, have the right to kill some one who cannot or will not kill us. If you shoot the attacker with the knife and his buddy is just standing there then shooting him is murder, IMHO. Now, having him looking down the barrel whilst you determine his intent to continue the fight is just plain logic but you must not shoot unless and until he makes himself a threat or a continued threat.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives...
...they just don't plan not to.
-Andy Stanley
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old March 2, 2009, 04:55 PM   #16
Shadi Khalil
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.
Shadi Khalil is offline  
Old March 2, 2009, 05:10 PM   #17
marino13
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 24, 2008
Location: orlando,fl
Posts: 76
i would have to agree

nicely put teifman
marino13 is offline  
Old March 2, 2009, 05:10 PM   #18
scorpion_tyr
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
scorpion_tyr is offline  
Old March 2, 2009, 05:49 PM   #19
Creature
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,769
Quote:
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.
I seriously doubt that's how the jury would view it.
Creature is offline  
Old March 2, 2009, 06:05 PM   #20
Shadi Khalil
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 23, 2006
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 5,210
Quote:
I seriously doubt that's how the jury would view it
How do you know for sure? Seems like a pretty valid agument to me. I would doubt a lawyer hasent tried it. They would probably sell it alot better to.
Shadi Khalil is offline  
Old March 2, 2009, 06:57 PM   #21
XpatBubba
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
XpatBubba is offline  
Old March 2, 2009, 07:29 PM   #22
KC Rob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2009
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 321
Quote:
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.
I say the shoot the guy without the knife first, there are two of them so in most states that would count as disparity of force, you can still shoot an unarmed attacker if you fear for your life because you are outnumbered. Next pop the guy with the knife, he had a weapon and clearly intended to do you harm! You get two for the price of one and you just did society and big favor! Its all about the order you shoot them in!

[The State of California has determined that these comments contain "tongue in cheek" and may be bad for your health]
KC Rob is offline  
Old March 2, 2009, 07:31 PM   #23
OldMarksman
Staff
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
Quote:
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.
Well, that was the original question: "can you safely assume both are armed from a legal standpoint? I could see a prosecutor saying...".

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:
This is a problem brought about by the rampant increase in political correctness in our society.
I respectfully disagree. The question of when deadly force is justified--which in most places leads directly to the question of what constitutes self defense--has been at the root of the deliberation of a lot of homicide cases for centuries. When a homicide is committed, it is either unlawful or it is justified, and the determination will be made in each case by the judicial system. I don't know that that much has changed in that regard since the beginning of the formulation of the common law.

Quote:
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 stopping to decide what the DA might do in between each action.
Yes, you need to know first what your objective is, and what it is not.

Quote:
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.
Not a bad idea, but we best educate ourselves on what constitutes the proper exercise of that right first.

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:
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.
I don't think most DA's need education on the subject. They and their staffs know the law, the case law, and what has happened in their communities.

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.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old March 2, 2009, 07:38 PM   #24
OldMarksman
Staff
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
Quote:
I say the shoot the guy without the knife first, there are two of them so in most states that would count as disparity of force, you can still shoot an unarmed attacker if you fear for your life because you are outnumbered. Next pop the guy with the knife, he had a weapon and clearly intended to do you harm! You get two for the price of one and you just did society and big favor! Its all about the order you shoot them in!

[The State of California has determined that these comments contain "tongue in cheek" and may be bad for your health]
Good thing there's a disclaimer on that!

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.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old March 2, 2009, 08:40 PM   #25
David Armstrong
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
Quote:
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?
Why make the assumption that shooting anybody is the best way to handle this? I don't know how much money you carry around with you, but I'd bet it is less than paying the attorney will be after you shoot somebody.
David Armstrong is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.13990 seconds with 10 queries