A completely REALISTIC tactical scenario

[David Armstrong]

Did you ever encounter one of these pukes who wasn't armed with some sort of a weapon?

Found a lot that carried, found a lot that didn't. But more to the point you don't get to act based on "I thought he probably would have a weapon."

However, the proverbial Catch-22 is that with scumbags like this, they dare cops and ordinary citizens alike to shoot them, and will often escalate the situation just to call someone's bluff.

Exactly. That is why I tend to suggest waiting. At the time, the OP has numerous options available to him. Once he draws and threatens, he has narrowed that range of options down significantly.

But if/when the situation denigrates further, well, there is a reason the majority of states passed CCW laws. . . . and being in absolute fear for your well-being and life is at the top of the list.

No disagreement. But I think that is very different than standing there waiting for the BG to get closer and closer.

[David Armstrong]

The guy is in the process of turning the threat (assault) into a battery.......not just using the public sidewalk.

Prove it. The guy is still just mouthing away. No particularly threatening gestures, no weapons, etc. Girlfriend in court: "Your Honor, I don't know why that horrible man shot my boyfriend. He had just gotten out of the car and was going over to apologize for being rude -OR- He had just gotten out of the car to find out why that horrible man kept staring at us and making obscene gestures." etc.

Unless he is directly from the cast of The Wizard of Oz or void of arms he is capable of causing you great bodily harm or death.

Using that criteria you need to start shooting everyone who walks by you and mutters anything bad about you.

Also the Castle Doctrine simply removes then need to retreat. All other criteria for justification are the same.

Exactly. And simple threats (which is all we have here) do not justify lethal force.

You want to risk fist fighting with a 20 year old buck go right ahead.

No, I don't. That is why I turn around and go the other direction. If he chases me and escalates the situation then maybe we will reach the point that lethal force is jsutified and needed.

I expected more from someone so tactically savvy.

Savvy to me indicates trying to avoid a fight when possible.

Once my weapon is exposed to the BG if he continues the attack it can be argued legally that he risked death or great bodily injury and must have been willing to give such.

Uh, no, there is no legal doctrine that supports that conclusion.

[Socrates]

Any suggestions on the do's and don't's of pepper spray?

I also get a bit concerned about this issue. One of the companies has a combined pepper/mace/dye gel.http://www.defensedevices.com/mace-g...per-spray.html

This was recommended by a guy at the gunstore. Said he's used it once on a guy with a knife on Bart, and, his mom on a purse snatcher. Worked great both times, and, did not get anyone else. Haven't shot the stuff myself, but, as with CCW, don't really expect to every have to use it.

Use it for jogging, for dogs or maybe fierce cats:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4i3j...eature=related


I should use it. I'm really more concerned with a dog, or wild basketball player late at night then anything else.

YOu might think about a bear quality spray, for walking with a dog...

I was thinking about taking my cat for a walk, and, pepper spray would be with me, and probably a steel baton. Come to think of it, that probably wouldn't be a bad idea for such walks as well...http://www.tbotech.com/telescopicbaton.htm

I've got one sort of like it from Martial arts, and it's probably illegal.

http://www.tbotech.com/dogchaser.htm


http://www.tbotech.com/bearspray.htm

Given the situation described, a blast of this stuff would probably do the trick, and, if the guy runs to his car, and you see a gun, you can hit him from distance with it.

[littlelikesand]

In this day and age your first line of defense is speed dial 911 on your cell phone. Get the operator on the line and barring a bad connection, service failure or a marginal operator start getting the situation recorded. If you don`t have a cell phone by virtue of too poor or your technically challenged, then your taking a serious chance just going to the corner market (if they have them anymore). Most have cameras in case of an accident or just to get a plate number.

I stopped at a circle K out here in AZ. A scruffy woman walked up to me and said her car was broke so she and her really scruffy boyfriend needed a ride just down the road. As she talked, her partner was circling around my truck behind me. I grabbed my phone and called 911 and made it clear that I was calling 911. I had my concealed carry .44 on my belt and my hand on it as I slowly turned to keep an eye on both of them. They listened to me for a few seconds, jumped in the BROKE car and took off. I had the plate number and announced it to the operator. I received a call from the Sheriff and hour later. They had been stopped and detained on outstandings. I didn`t follow up, but I didn`t have to shoot or bruise myself pounding on anyone.

John "little like sand"

[spacemanspiff]

A very similar situation is already under discussion here: http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...d.php?t=296905
My brain is tired at the moment, but if memory serves correctly, this current thread has more responses to NOT use deadly force, and in the above linked thread, there are more response in favor of using deadly force.
I'll check back on it later, maybe tomorrow and see if thats right, if so, what are the differences?

[threegun]

Prove it. The guy is still just mouthing away. No particularly threatening gestures, no weapons, etc. Girlfriend in court: "Your Honor, I don't know why that horrible man shot my boyfriend. He had just gotten out of the car and was going over to apologize for being rude -OR- He had just gotten out of the car to find out why that horrible man kept staring at us and making obscene gestures." etc.

"keep looking you **** I will come out there and beat the **** out of you."

Followed by the guy getting out of the car and coming toward you. All the proof I need.

I certainly hope you can fight with the young bucks David. With your thinking pattern in this scenario you are going to need to. BTW Why would you retreat if you didn't consider this guy a threat? He's just coming to apologize right?

Using that criteria you need to start shooting everyone who walks by you and mutters anything bad about you.

It was satire. I used it to explain that unless this BG didn't have the physical ability to defeat you, that they posed a threat of death or great bodily injury. As you are acutely aware in this scenario I said that I would retreat first. That means the BD would have to pursue me after threatening to beat the crap out of me. Thats hardly just "muttering" something bad and walking by.

Exactly. And simple threats (which is all we have here) do not justify lethal force.

Again re read the thread. A threat followed by an action to execute threat. Followed by a chase.

Savvy to me indicates trying to avoid a fight when possible

As most have agreed already.....including me.

Prove it. The guy is still just mouthing away. No particularly threatening gestures, no weapons, etc. Girlfriend in court: "Your Honor, I don't know why that horrible man shot my boyfriend. He had just gotten out of the car and was going over to apologize for being rude -OR- He had just gotten out of the car to find out why that horrible man kept staring at us and making obscene gestures." etc.

Again if this quote doesn't suggest that you are going to wait until punches are thrown I must be reading it wrong. Waiting for escalation is not tactically sound IMO.

Uh, no, there is no legal doctrine that supports that conclusion.

It can and will be argued legally if it was necessary to defend yourself in court. I will instruct my lawyer to use it as a defense in court. I will trust the jury to understand that anyone who is willing to risk death to attack you was themselves willing to kill you.

[Aqeous]

Well then . . . when can we draw what we carry?


I am guessing that you are in law enforcement so you probably have a good idea what you are talking about. However, your are making it sound like we can only draw after we are being beaten down. Is that what you are saying?? In your opinion when can we actually draw? Please post a variation of my initial scenario that will include a point when you feel drawing your CCW is a valid option. I would like to discuss it here on this thread.



Socrates: Pepper spray gel . . . never heard of it. Looks like really good stuff though. Seems to me like a face full of sticky gel might really do a number on the BG.

[Socrates]

You'll love this: Kali limits the size of the container you can carry.
So, you want bear spray in the car for gang bangers in LA? You breaking the law...:barf:

[Stevie-Ray]

I was thinking about taking my cat for a walk, and, pepper spray would be with me, and probably a steel baton. Come to think of it, that probably wouldn't be a bad idea for such walks as well...http://www.tbotech.com/telescopicbaton.htm

I've got one sort of like it from Martial arts, and it's probably illegal.

We used to call those Sipos, and at one time they were legal in Michigan, as were all "batons" which these were classified as. Somewhere along the line they became illegal. Of course, can't have anybody bopping criminals around can we? Why, that would be violent and improper, not to mention infringing on his rights of safe passage, and taking from you what he wants.

[KingofAttendance]

"Are you suggesting that you don't make judgments based on appearance? How do you identify potential threats?

No I don't find this discomforting but rather enlightening. I believe that Aqeous correctly identified a [color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color] with just a glance. This identification gave him an edge in alertness IMO.

I'm looking for every edge possible in keeping myself and family safe. Political correctness has no place in my self defense. A gang banger type trumps a well dressed clean cut man in my potential threat spectrum.

Besides mom always said that you only get one chance to make a first impression. Don't want folks to assume you are a gang banger then don't dress like one."

Threegun, I am suggesting exactly that. I do not make judgements based on apperance because I am a better person than that; I don't judge books by their covers. Some guy was wearing a baggy shirt or a hoodie, he must be a criminal right? Are you so out of touch that you don't realize young people's styles today? I wear hoodies all the time and I'm certainly not an unruly type that you *KNOW* has committed crimes beforehand therefore should be considered a threat. A threat is someone that threatens you, not that looks different.

What your mom says should be of no concern to us, because other moms say different things and nobody's mom is neccesarily 'right'. There are more well dressed criminals than poorly dressed ones. Stop using the term 'gang banger' to refer to anyone that isn't behind on the times.

[gvf]

Delete

[Hook686]

Again if this quote doesn't suggest that you are going to wait until punches are thrown I must be reading it wrong. Waiting for escalation is not tactically sound IMO.

Interesting, but in California the law seems to me to suggest that a beatdown is to be endured in lieu of drawing a weapon.

3. THE USE OF FIREARMS IN DEFENSE OF LIFE AND PROPERTY

The question of whether use of a firearm is justified for self-defense cannot be reduced to a
simple list of factors. This section is based on the instructions generally given to the jury
in a criminal case where self-defense is claimed and illustrates the general rules regarding
use of firearms in self-defense.

Use of a Firearm or Other Deadly Force in Defense of Life and Body

The killing of one person by another may be justifiable when necessary to resist the
attempt to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime, provided that a reasonable person
in the same or similar situation would believe that (a) the person killed intended to commit
a forcible and life-threatening crime; (b) there was imminent danger of such crime being
accomplished; and (c) the person acted under the belief that such force was necessary to
save himself or herself or another from death or a forcible and life-threatening crime.
Murder, mayhem, rape, and robbery are examples of forcible and life-threatening crimes.

Self-Defense Against Assault

It is lawful for a person being assaulted to defend himself or herself from attack if he or she
has reasonable grounds for believing, and does in fact believe, that he or she will suffer
bodily injury. In doing so, he or she may use such force, up to deadly force, as a
reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would believe necessary to prevent
great bodily injury or death. An assault with fists does not justify use of a deadly weapon
in self-defense unless the person being assaulted believes, and a reasonable person in the
same or similar circumstances would also believe, that the assault is likely to inflict great
bodily injury.It is lawful for a person who has grounds for believing, and does in fact believe, that great
bodily injury is about to be inflicted upon another to protect the victim from attack. In so
doing, the person may use such force as reasonably necessary to prevent the injury.
Deadly force is only considered reasonable to prevent great bodily injury or death.
NOTE: The use of excessive force to counter an assault may result in civil or criminal
penalties.

Protecting One’s Home

A person may defend his or her home against anyone who attempts to enter in a violent
manner intending violence to any person in the home. The amount of force that may be
California Firearms Laws 2005 31
used in resisting such entry is limited to that which would appear necessary to a reasonable
person in the same or similar circumstances to resist the violent entry. One is not bound to
retreat, even though a retreat might safely be made. One may resist force with force,
increasing it in proportion to the intruder’s persistence and violence, if the circumstances
apparent to the occupant would cause a reasonable person in the same or similar situation
to fear for his or her safety.
The occupant may use a firearm when resisting the intruder’s attempt to commit a forcible
and life-threatening crime against anyone in the home provided that a reasonable person in
the same or similar situation would believe that (a) the intruder intends to commit a
forcible and life-threatening crime; (b) there is imminent danger of such crime being
accomplished; and (c) the occupant acts under the belief that use of a firearm is necessary
to save himself or herself or another from death or great bodily injury. Murder, mayhem,
rape, and robbery are examples of forcible and life-threatening crimes.
Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his
or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of
death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force
is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully
and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person
using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry had
occurred. Great bodily injury means a significant or substantial physical injury. (Penal
Code § 198.5.)
NOTE: If the presumption is rebutted by contrary evidence, the occupant may be
criminally liable for an unlawful assault or homicide.

I personally do not think it wise to advocate lethal force in a potential fist fight as 'Tactically sound' to be in the best interest of all who read the material on this board.

[Socrates]

Hook686:
It's traditional, both in forums and law, to give a link, or cite where the quote you are using came from.

Please link, or cite the statute this came from...

[threegun]

King,

Threegun, I am suggesting exactly that. I do not make judgments based on appearance because I am a better person than that; I don't judge books by their covers. Some guy was wearing a baggy shirt or a hoodie, he must be a criminal right? Are you so out of touch that you don't realize young people's styles today? I wear hoodies all the time and I'm certainly not an unruly type that you *KNOW* has committed crimes beforehand therefore should be considered a threat. A threat is someone that threatens you, not that looks different.

For starters, I don't believe you. I don't believe that you are so above the normal human response as to not make mental judgments based on appearance. We are programmed to use looks to judge. That said if you are above us regular folks and don't judge based on looks, you are leaving a precious tactical tool out of your arsenal.

BTW I can and have picked out trouble makers simply by looks. When someone looks like a thug, dresses like a thug, acts (body language) like a thug, guess what they usually are a thug.

I would pay extra attention to a man wearing a motorcycle helmet in a bank or a man poking around my neighborhood at night dressed in black both solely on appearance.

In public I regularly scan the area noting anything I perceive as potential threats. I don't treat these folks any differently other than paying them extra attention.

You can bet though that the way you dress alone will get you extra attention in stores by security, by police on the beat, and by savvy CWP holders on the street. You might not like it but it goes on everyday. It is natural.

Some guy was wearing a baggy shirt or a hoodie, he must be a criminal right?

Nope, He's a guy wearing a baggy shirt and hoodie. Now if you have Mr. baggy shirt and hoodie in a room with a granny, preacher, and a man dressed in a suit, who you gonna give most of your attention to?

*Most of the people I sell guns to who have been robbed or attacked in the past knew they were in trouble before it happened based much on looks. There stories indicate that they sensed the trouble about to come from a distance. I can't remember one saying that the criminal was well dressed or homely looking.

[gvf]

Now I am pretty darn sure that I didn't look at him cross eyed . . . I am pretty darn sure all I did was look AT the car to see who was inside because I hadn't seen the vehicle around before. As they round the corner and pass me (being that they had there windows open) I could just barely here him say as he looked right at me "keep looking you **** I will come out there and beat the **** out of you." and his girl friend covered her mouth laughing apparently happy with her choice in boyfriend . . .

I guess years of proper hearing protection at the range as kept my ears in pretty good condition, because even though he said it mostly under his breath , I was still able to here it over the wind and the car engine.

This is silly stuff. This is muttered tough talk. Happens all the time. This is life in the big city. And you want to FANTASIZE about the legality of shooting someone in the BACK, who IN YOUR FANTASY, is RUNNING AWAY from you.

SD is for real - imminent -NOW -- about-to-die - once a in many life-times event, that legally has nothing to do with gun law or guns. It's for everyone. And CCW is merely a waiver against the usual penalty for carrying a gun, and also does not deal with shooting people.

And it is not for anyone based on anything else - no other situation, no other internal bias, fear, opinion, 2nd Amendment stance, hatred of "scum", fear, stance on crime or anything else.

Lastly, violent crime - as it has since the 19th century - continues to lower markedly. And is now at historic low levels. New York, as an example, is the safest largest city in the country, and out of all locales with populations of over 100,000, lies near the bottom in terms of violent crime.


So someone mutters tough-talk. So what. Were we all to shoot each other based on that, half of us would be dead.

The half-victim/half-cowboy attitudes some people have, has "0" to do with Self-Defense - and makes mistakes based on predispositions a real risk since you carry a gun around with you.

[Hook686]

2008-06-18 12:25 AM

Socrates wrote:

Hook686:

It's traditional, both in forums and law, to give a link, or cite where the quote you are using came from.

Please link, or cite the statute this came from...

Here is link:

http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/forms/pdf/cfl.pdf


p 30-31

[Jermtheory]

sorry,i dont come arround this forum too much and i didnt read every post...

but pepper spray is a bad idea imo.ive seen it used on half a dozen or so occasions.

worked out well once or twice...

the other times it either failed to stop the threat and/or affected the person spraying it as much or more than the person being sprayed.

the latter actually happened to me just testing a bottle,even after testing the wind to make sure it was at my back.i dont know if the wind changed or i misjudged or what...but that wasnt even under stress,so no thank you.

if i were to carry a non-lethal...it wouldnt be any type of spray...

[Socrates]

OK:
Advantage of gel spray is it doesn't come back at you.

"Interesting, but in California the law seems to me to suggest that a beatdown is to be endured in lieu of drawing a weapon."

Thanks for the cite. Locklear is the AG, and, as such has only power over the Assistant AG's, who are used for trying cases in Supreme Court cases, in Kali. His interpretation of Kali law is much like what you get in law school, an overview of the law. However, you have to go to case law that most closely represents your case to get an idea of what that phrase means:

In doing so, he or she may use such force, up to deadly force, as a
reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would believe necessary to prevent
great bodily injury or death. An assault with fists does not justify use of a deadly weapon
in self-defense unless the person being assaulted believes, and a reasonable person in the
same or similar circumstances would also believe, that the assault is likely to inflict great
bodily injury.It is lawful for a person who has grounds for believing, and does in fact believe, that great
bodily injury is about to be inflicted upon another to protect the victim from attack. In so
doing, the person may use such force as reasonably necessary to prevent the injury.
Deadly force is only considered reasonable to prevent great bodily injury or death.
NOTE: The use of excessive force to counter an assault may result in civil or criminal
penalties.

The situation is the key to the entire issue. If Bernard Geotz had been 40 years older, and kept his mouth shut, it
would have been very difficult to anyone to try him, much less convict him. Law is determined by specific cases, and, the back chair, after the fact quarterbacking of first a police officer, and his crew, then the D.A. and their rebooking D.A., then the D.A. Once filed, and, it's usually got to be real strong for a D.A. to file, or, very high profile, since the D.A. is an elected official, then a judge has to determine if the case has sufficient content to take to trial, according to the laws of California. If he finds it's triable, then a jury or judge trial is picked by the Defense, and, you proceed to trial. Depending on the prior cases that most closely resemble yours, that have gone to the appellate divisions, and the Kali Supreme Court, and, the U.S. Supreme Court if the Kali Supreme Court's decision was appealed to a Federal level, only on an issue based in the Constitution. In other words, Bill Locklears' opinion is a restatement of the Kali Supreme Courts' trial decisions on cases in self-defense. I would suggest a look at the actual case law on the subject.. That said, Locklears' position is elected, and therefore dictates that his public statements serve the public interest, which is non-violence.

Locklear's writing on the Kali self-defense law will only become relevant if it's an accurate reporting of a summary of Kali case law on the subject, and, just as with any other case in law, your circumstances will make the result change. General commentaries on law are nice guidelines, but, you need case law to get a really good idea on where you stand.

Dr. S J.D.

[David Armstrong]

Followed by the guy getting out of the car and coming toward you. All the proof I need.

Strangely, the courts seem to need a lot more proof than that. Again, simple threats constitute a misdemeanor (even in Florida). Deadly force is not an appropriate response.

BTW Why would you retreat if you didn't consider this guy a threat?

Because I want to maximize my options both for an immediate response as well as a legal defense. The better question is why wouldn't you retreat if you consider the guy a threat?

Again re read the thread. A threat followed by an action to execute threat. Followed by a chase.

Maybe you are the one that needs to re-read the thread. No chase (OP: "I think I would draw him closer to me (and farther away from the car) as far as I could, and begin telling him to Back off! Back off! much more assertively.") and no action to execute the threat (BG just continues yelling profanity).

Again if this quote doesn't suggest that you are going to wait until punches are thrown I must be reading it wrong. Waiting for escalation is not tactically sound IMO.

As usual, yes, you are reading it wrong, as nowhere in there do I suggest waiting until punches are thrown. As I have to tell you so often, deal with what is said, not what you make up. And your opinion is duly noted, but escalation is not only tactically sound, it is almost required in this situation if you are trying to determine the point at which one uses deadly force.

It can and will be argued legally if it was necessary to defend yourself in court. I will instruct my lawyer to use it as a defense in court.

You can instruct your lawyer all you want to, but unless you can convince the judge there is some legal ground for the claim odds are it will not be allowed. Again, there is no legal support for the idea that "Once my weapon is exposed to the BG if he continues the attack it can be argued legally that he risked death or great bodily injury and must have been willing to give such." Such an action indicates ONLY what you were willing to do, not what the BG was planning on doing.

[David Armstrong]

Well then . . . when can we draw what we carry?

Depends on the exact wording of your state law, but as a genereal rule when you REASONABLY feel that you are in imminent danger of loss of life or great bodily harm. The key is "reasonable" (can you convince a jury that they would have done what you did). The other big issue is what constitutes "great bodily harm." Just getting in a fight doesn't count. Getting your nose broke probably doesn't count.

I am guessing that you are in law enforcement so you probably have a good idea what you are talking about.

Sort of retired now, but I still teach/train, and I'm a Concealed Handgun Instructor for my state, as well as a few other certs. Plus this is a research area of mine, so I think I'm fairly well read on the subject.

However, your are making it sound like we can only draw after we are being beaten down. Is that what you are saying??

No.

Please post a variation of my initial scenario that will include a point when you feel drawing your CCW is a valid option.

If BG grabs any sort of weapon, or if he chases you when you attempt to flee. Either of those would change the dynamics significantly, IMO. We move away from the "Well, he might..." scena and closer to the "He did this..." area.

Pepper spray gel . . . never heard of it. Looks like really good stuff though.

One of those other certifications I mentioned is that of a pepper spray instructor. IMO the gel is the most restrictive and least useful of the variants. I would recommend a good stream delivery.

[threegun]

David as usual your word play has not only myself but a few others feeling that you were suggesting that one would have to wait until punches were thrown to act.

You feel the need to flee in this scenario as do I. The difference is I feel that the threat which caused you to flee is still the same threat if you didn't flee. You indicated that the BG that just threatened you and was now coming at you was not a threat. Yet you would retreat from him. Kinda talking out of both sides here.

The fact is he did make a threat to harm you and was coming at you (completely out of his way). If one was not able to flee, to make a better defense as you put it, the threat remains the same.

[Socrates]

Fight like a cornered cat. Do everything you can to get away, then tear the holy heck out of him if he corners you, or won't let you get away.

David, which is your favorite pepper spray, and why?

I like the gel because sometimes we take BART, or are in confined areas with lots of people around. Also, when we walk the cat, it's usually windy. Any help here would be good.

Thank you.

[David Armstrong]

David as usual your word play has not only myself but a few others feeling that you were suggesting that one would have to wait until punches were thrown to act.

And as usual if you will deal with what is actually said instead of what you feel is being said, or what you think is being suggested, one will be better off. Using words precisely and expecting them to be considered as they are said is not word play.

You feel the need to flee in this scenario as do I.

No, I don't feel the need to flee. It is an option that is available, and I think that a controlled retreat from the scene gives improved dynamics should a self-defense situation arise.

You indicated that the BG that just threatened you and was now coming at you was not a threat. Yet you would retreat from him. Kinda talking out of both sides here.

Nonsense. You can (and probably should) retreat from a number of things that are not immediate threats. Such withdraw can serve to either defuse the situation or help you identify an actual threat to you, at the very least.

If one was not able to flee, to make a better defense as you put it, the threat remains the same.

And if gas was $.25 we wouldn't be griping about prices. What is the "IF" nonsense? Why is it that you seem totally incapable of discussing things as they are actually presented? Yes, the threat is the same--a verbal encounter at the misdemeanor level. You don't get to draw your gun and shoot people for that.

[David Armstrong]

David, which is your favorite pepper spray, and why?

I like the Fox brand with the spray delivery. It provides a good all-around type of delivery that you can use for precise shots or wide area dispersion.

[threegun]

David,

And if gas was $.25 we wouldn't be griping about prices. What is the "IF" nonsense? Why is it that you seem totally incapable of discussing things as they are actually presented? Yes, the threat is the same--a verbal encounter at the misdemeanor level. You don't get to draw your gun and shoot people for that.

Now please show me were I said that I would shoot someone for that.