"Carry Rotation"

[Brit]

Out for Pancakes this AM, my Wife and I.

Glock 19 4th Gen, spare G17 mag. Plus a Sure Fire flashlight. Out side the waist band holster. If I had to shoot some one, a bit of a stretch. But a very handy pistol, and method of carry.

Home, stripped off to Track Pants, short sleeved sports shirt. Same G19 in reinforced right pants pocket, my Wife is handy with her sewing machine, and Cell phone in left side pocket. Till bed time, now. Midnight.

Cell phone & G19 on bedside table. Nice fashion statement I recon.

Good night fellow aware Old Guys.

[Loosedhorse]

Originally Posted by OldMarksman

It is most likely that the confrontation will be completely unexpected

Hmmm. Based on what statistical data?

The pool of candidates on this forum is not average. Many (most?) take the precaution of going armed daily, if I've gauged them correctly.

If I'm walking alone down a dark street, I am watching for hostile approach. If a group then starts to follow me or moves to intercept me, that's not completely unexpected--it's exactly what I was looking for.

If that group then decides to attack (despite my changing direction away from them), that's also not completely unexpected; that possibility is why I decided to go armed in the first place, and why I went to condition orange.

Somebody who's unarmed, believes the police (or their "good neighborhood") will always protect them, and walks around in condition white? Sure, it's very likely they will be surprised if attacked; but that's not me.

(It remains of course possible that any one of us could be attacked completely by surprise. That puts us in the interesting position of being prepared for being completely unprepared, as it were; Rory Miller, among others, has written extensively about that conundrum. Still, there is a difference between telling folks they COULD be attacked completely by surprise, and that they probably will be.)

[OldMarksman]

The pool of candidates on this forum is not average. Many (most?) take the precaution of going armed daily, if I've gauged them correctly.

That has nothing to do with my comment.

If I'm walking alone down a dark street, I am watching for hostile approach.

You may be doing so some of the time, and you may detect such an approach. Or not.

If a group then starts to follow me or moves to intercept me, that's not completely unexpected--it's exactly what I was looking for.

That's one possibility.

If that group then decides to attack (despite my changing direction away from them), that's also not completely unexpected; that possibility is why I decided to go armed in the first place, and why I went to condition orange.

That might be one reason to carry a gun, but believing that that is the most likely eventuality sounds a whole lot like fantasy.

Somebody who's unarmed, believes the police (or their "good neighborhood") will always protect them, and walks around in condition white? Sure, it's very likely they will be surprised if attacked; but that's not me.

If by that you mean that you are less likely to be surprised by violent attackers than to expect them, I think you are fooling yourself.

(It remains of course possible that any one of us could be attacked completely by surprise. ...)

Yep.

[Loosedhorse]

but believing that that is the most likely eventuality sounds a whole lot like fantasy.

What "that" are you talking about?

I mentioned that the possibility of being attacked is the reason I go armed. I said nothing about any "most likely eventuality," though you seem to think I did. (I did imply that I routinely go around in condition yellow. And I do. That's not fantasy.)

If by that you mean that you are less likely to be surprised by violent attackers than to expect them, I think you are fooling yourself.

You're entitled to your opinion about how I will be attacked. After all, as Yogi Berra said, predictions are very difficult. Especially about the future. And his warning applies to us all.

However, I've been doing the living of my life; so unlike you I know how many times I've been approached in a threatening way, how many times I've been attacked...and how many times I've been surprised. FWIW, my tally doesn't match your suppositions.

While I appreciate your taking the time to respond (and to respond so carefully), you have not made the case that, as you claimed, "It is most likely that the confrontation will be completely unexpected." Words like "you are fooling yourself" and "sounds a whole lot like fantasy" are not the same as making a case.

(Hmm. I wonder if we're using the words "completely unexpected" differently. I take it to mean that, until the moment I'm receiving my attacker's first blows, or he's making his first overt, credible threat of violence, I had no idea he was a possible threat, nor even perhaps that he was there. I do believe that is not "most likely."

Either way: seems to me you're not going to dissuade me from what you think are my "fantasies" and "fooling myself" about what's "likely" for me; I'm not going to dissuade you from your false assumptions about my life and my probabilities; and you're not going to produce any evidence supporting for your suppositions about my individual probabilities, nor for your more general "It is most likely" claim. So, there we are.)

[TailGator]

My experience is that you actually become more focused, and better prepared for the confrontation.

Some people react that way, and some don't. At the other end of the spectrum are people who freeze and are unable react. In my amateur opinion, proficiency with firearms is only one factor in our reaction. Personality characteristics and training in other emergency situations are other factors, and probably not the only ones.

By "training in other emergency situations" I mean that folks who are accustomed to making fast sure decisions in their work - emergency responders and some kinds of medical professionals come to mind - may well develop an enhanced ability to be clear thinking under pressure that could carry over to defensive situations. If you are one of those, either by training or by nature, you should recognize that such traits are not universal at all.

[OldMarksman]

What "that" are you talking about?

This: "If that group then decides to attack (despite my changing direction away from them [indicating that you were aware of them] ), that's also not completely unexpected;...".

I mentioned that the possibility of being attacked is the reason I go armed.

That's why most of us do. You seemed to imply that you go armed to prepare for situations in which a group may start to follow you or move to intercept you, which would not be completely unexpected. You said "it's exactly what I was looking for", and that if that group were to then decide to attack (despite your changing direction away from them) that possibility is why you decided to go armed in the first place,

I know how many times I've been approached in a threatening way, ...

You know how many times you were aware of having been approached in a threatening way.

...how many times I've been attacked...and how many times I've been surprised.

"Past performance is no guarantee..."

(Hmm. I wonder if we're using the words "completely unexpected" differently. I take it to mean that, until the moment I'm receiving my attacker's first blows, or he's making his first overt, credible threat of violence, I had no idea he was a possible threat, nor even perhaps that he was there. I do believe that is not "most likely."

That may be the crux.

No. It means, in defensive training parlance, that the attack is an ambush, made without warning. Your scenario of a "hostile approach" that can reasonably be detected in advance, when "a group then starts to follow...or moves to intercept ..." would not reasonably be characterized as "completely unexpected".

What would be completely unexpected, as I intended the words to mean, is, to describe one example, when you notice the reflection of someone walking behind you when you are using gas pump, your realizing as he nears that he has a hand behind his leg. You did not "expect" it at all, and you would not say "it's exactly what I was looking for ".

It should be one of the things you are prepared for , but that would not make it expected.

Sure--keeping both eyes open, noticing things that don't look right, changing direction or crossing the street and back are excellent strategies. They would be very helpful in some situations.

But they won't work when someone charges out for behind the dumpster past which you have just strolled.

Let's try to apply a little common sense. Do you really believe that a couple of violent criminal actors intent on attacking you would behave in such manner as to give you a timely indication of the danger? Would that be a success oriented strategy? Don't you think that they might understand the risk of getting shot?

The I.C. E. PDN Combat Focus Shooting training curriculum describes what is more likely as a Dynamic Critical Incident--any event that is:

1. Surprising – A sudden event that you did not expect or anticipate

2. Chaotic – Things are happening rapidly and you have no idea what is going to happen next

3. Threatening – With physical violence that could cause grave bodily injury or death

That's not the same thing as seeing someone out ahead of you and making assessments and preparing to avoid them. But it is more likely. And it requires a different response.

I suggest taking the course.

Interestingly, the subject of "situational awareness" came up during lunch between sessions. Th instructor showed several ways in which the people at the table might have been attacked without warning even as they thought they were ware of averaging in their surroundings. One comment that I remember is "you were not reading a Braille menu".

[Loosedhorse]

You seemed to imply that you go armed to prepare for situations in which a group...

No. But you seem to have inferred that.

You know how many times you were aware of having been approached in a threatening way.

So what? Your statement was "It is most likely that the confrontation will be completely unexpected." Perhaps you think I was confronted and wasn't aware of it?

"Past performance is no guarantee..."

We're not talking about guarantees, but about probabilities; as in "It is most likely...", remember? Past performance, especially over a long period of time, does speak to probability.

when you notice the reflection of someone walking behind you when you are using gas pump

Perhaps that's why, when I'm at the gas pump, I scan as I drive up, again before I get out of my car, again as I do, etc.

You seem to have me in an interesting bind: when I am ambushed, I will be take completely by surprise. That isn't a statement of probability; it is a definition. It is not the most likely way I will be "confronted."

Again: "It is most likely that the confrontation will be completely unexpected."

several ways in which the people at the table might have been attacked without warning

Could have, sure, but that's not the same as probably will be.

Well, at least we've proven my last statement from my last post. So, I retire. I do appreciate your suggestion about the course.

[mavracer]

when you notice the reflection of someone walking behind you when you are using gas pump, your realizing as he nears that he has a hand behind his leg. You did not "expect" it at all, and you would not say "it's exactly what I was looking for ".

That is exactly the reason I'm scanning the lot while I fill up, so yes that IS EXACTLY WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR.

[OldMarksman]

Perhaps you think I was confronted and wasn't aware of it?

No.

You did not say "confronted".

I have witnessed people being put into clear and present danger by bad people who changed their minds due to other occurrences , and the intended victims were never aware of it.

Perhaps that's why, when I'm at the gas pump, I scan as I drive up, again before I get out of my car, again as I do, etc.

Excellent practice. So do I.

...when I am ambushed, I will be take completely by surprise. That isn't a statement of probability; it is a definition. It is not the most likely way I will be "confronted."

Do you really think that someone who chooses to attack you with great violence will likely not employ the advantage of surprise?

Why?

Counter Ambush--The Science of Training for the Unexpected Defensive Shooting, by Rob Pincus covers the subset very well. It is out of print, but Yyu may be able to obtain a copy.

[Brit]

There are lots of talk of "Walking down Dark streets?" I would hazard a guess that a lot of confrontations are whilst "Walking" to, and from your vehicle, on a parking lot.

Grocery Store/Down town covered parking lot, etc. If you are dealing with two individuals, straight away you are out numbered. They have the advantage, normally of age, they hi teens, early twenty's. You, older.

One of the popular wants? Your vehicle. Your garage opener. The pistol in the console. Your wallet, with all your history in it.
And if they get close enough (You let them get too close) you are going to the ground. One of the main reasons you do not become a victim, after many years of being out in public, on your own, or in my case with my Wife.
You get to know who fits, and who does not, in a given circumstance, place.
Big indicator, why are these two, if two, walking towards you?

A good tactic, used by our Police, hand on pistol, still in holster, verbal commands, as in "Don't move" "That's far enough".
And as was told to me, better safe than sorry. Just be thankful you live in a State that allows concealed carry, as I do. And you could come unstuck in using this tactic, in many ways.

I wonder how many of our readers, as non Police, have drawn pistols, but not fired? Or just pointed finger, of non gun hand, while gun hand goes under coat/shirt.
And it caused compliance (as in you stayed, they left?)

[OldMarksman]

I wonder how many of our readers, as non Police, have drawn pistols, but not fired?

That might appropriate under conditions requiring the use of deadly force.

In a handful of states, a requirement to imply non-deadly force might suffice to justify such an action.

Otherwise such behavior would constitute a serious crime.

And if the other persons believe that they are the good guys, it might be a good way to get shot.

[Brit]

OldMarksman.

Unfortunately your post shows, the great problem our Society suffers from.

Inactivity, while you think. Too late, you are dead.

I have done it, my pistol was at 45 degrees. The two kids ran. But they had partly blocked me from entering the stairs, from the top floor parking garage, of a Hilton Hotel. Yes I spoke "You are in my way Lad's" Liverpool accent an all.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Brit

OldMarksman.

Unfortunately your post shows, the great problem our Society suffers from.

Inactivity, while you think. Too late, you are dead.

Even if you consider it a "great problem our Society suffers from," OldMarksman has accurately stated the law, in general terms. While hesitation during a violent confrontation can indeed get one killed, shooting at the wrong time can earn one legal or financial troubles from which one may never emerge.

[OldMarksman]

I have done it, my pistol was at 45 degrees. The two kids ran. But they had partly blocked me from entering the stairs, from the top floor parking garage, of a Hilton Hotel. Yes I spoke "You are in my way Lad's" Liverpool accent an all.

I suggest taking some time to reflect upon this. All of it.

https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=536596

[Chris Karma]

but I only needed to see it once.
robber walks in jewelry store and clumsily attempts to pull out his gun, store owner completely gets his gun into play first, however he hadn't trained enough and pulls the trigger but he had left the safety on.
Robber shoots him dead.

My carry gun for yrs was either a full size glock or a sp101.

I will probably end up with one of those new slimmer single stack glocks because its hot here in the summer making concealment more difficult

[JohnKSa]

Inactivity, while you think. Too late, you are dead.

From what I can tell, inactivity is usually due to one of two things:

1. Inability to convince one's self that what is happening is really happening. It's hard to act when you're not convinced that you're seeing reality. Borne out by how often you hear the words: "I couldn't believe it was happening..." during after action interviews.

2. Strong conditioning not to act, or perhaps, better stated, lack of strong conditioning to act.

I have yet to hear someone reporting that they were concerned about legalities in the midst of a true life-or-death scenario. In fact, I am of the opinion that if one is truly thinking about legalities in the middle of a scenario, that is probably strong evidence that they shouldn't shoot. It's when all you're thinking about is how to save your life that shooting is justified.

[Brit]

Terrific posts, and I did read it all, including the rest of the page!

I will lay out my incident, in it's entirety, and I will state beforehand, I felt that I did the right thing then, and still 30 years later, now.

Along with a Buddy, we had attended a PPC Match, near Rochester NYS. For some reason, the Snub Nose match could not be finished in the one day, and we stayed over.
Jim was down with a bug, and could not conjure up the energy to get up early.

Coming back to the Hilton, late afternoon, all the indoor parking, full except the top floor. I backed in, to a space, collected my aluminium case from the trunk.
Which contained two S&W 2.5" barreled, adjustable sighted 6 shot revolvers.
The Snubby's had been worked on by an ex cop, turned gunsmith, just for S&W revolvers. Incredible double action triggers. The triggers themselves rounded off.

Plus the 148g, factory ammo, and speed loaders, etc. The case was purpose built by a Co. who made cases for cameras, and musicians.

Stage set.

Walking towards the entrance to the stairs to the lobby, I noticed two youths, facing each other, leaned against the cars, that were parked on the spots, on each side of the doorway. Both had one foot up, behind them, flat against the car. These young men were around 6' tall slim, tee shirts and jeans (this was before the no belt, hanging down style) feet came down, both watching my expensive looking case. Hands in plain sight.

Ten yards away, I stooped, and slide the case forward, a foot? About.

They were both looking at the case, their gift? I don't know what they were thinking.

When I straightened up, my right hand had produced a LWColt commander.
In the good old weaver stance, at 45 degrees. And quite calmly I said, "You are in my way Lads" They both bolted away to my right, one in front of the parked cars, one went behind. "Clunk" and a howl of pain, the one from behind the cars, moved to the front, and ran with a pronounced limp, after his buddy. Gun back into holster, picked up case, had a good look around, walked to see what caused the Clunk!

A big Ford Station Wagon backed in, with a long tow bar! Cause of clunk.

Heart rate up, a shortage of breath, mouth dry. But not desperately upset.
Told the desk person in the Lobby, they had a couple of kids hanging around the top deck parking area, and that's all.

In the five years I had been a part time Bouncer in Liverpool Clubs, including The Cavern Club, of Beatles fame, 1960 till 64, I had been in lots of fights, and been stabbed twice. My last year in the UK, 1965, at the Blue Angel, on Seal Street. A real night Club, the odd Gangster was a member, but never caused any trouble.

A fight is a fight, an almost gun fight, still just a fight. I felt my actions were justified, but of course no interaction with the legal system, so the the need to justify was never caused in to play.

Would I have done the same now, at 81 years of age? I don't know.

[OldMarksman]

....I noticed two youths, facing each other, leaned against the cars,.... Both had one foot up, behind them, flat against the car.... both watching my expensive looking case. Hands in plain sight.

....They were both looking at the case, their gift? I don't know what they were thinking.

Did you have any articulable basis whatsoever for reasonably believing that deadly force was immediately necessary to defend against an imminent threat of death or bodily harm?

That's the threshold for justifying the presentation of a weapon in most jurisdictions.

In NYS, one who " intentionally places or attempts to place another person in reasonable fear of physical injury, serious physical injury or death by displaying a deadly weapon, dangerous instrument or what appears to be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm" without lawful justification commits the crime of Menacing in the Second Degree--a rather minor offense, in the scheme of things.

In many other states, such as Florida, the act could constitute Aggravated Assault.

.... my right hand had produced a LWColt commander. And quite calmly I said, "You are in my way Lads"

How do you think that would sound in a defense of justification?

Told the desk person in the Lobby, they had a couple of kids hanging around the top deck parking area, and that's all.

That probably would not have helped your defense of justification either, had it come to that.

I felt my actions were justified, but of course no interaction with the legal system, so the the need to justify was never caused in to play.

Pure luck.

[Brit]

OM, I am still here, walking between those two youths? A yard of free space, would have been, in my opinion, stupid.

In reading, laws, statues, all very well, but in living in the UK, Germany (Mil Service) Australia, Canada, now Gods Country. My experience has been real life experience, not in words, but in deeds.

My job now? Looking after my lovely Wife, 24/7.

A scan of body movements, eye contact, pocket touching? A picture is worth a thousand words? Sound familiar?

At the Grand Old age of 81, I do not regret anything I have ever done. Being as honest as I can be, in my walk through life.
We are from different places, different times. With your careful assessing of situations? The young man, on Matthew Street, Liverpool in early the 1960s?

Seriously mentally impaired, who tried to kill me with an ice pick, while I was on my own on the door of the Cavern Club (only for 10 minutes) would have most likely have put that home made Ice Pick in my sternum, not my wrist.

Had I not been living on a very high alert, every weekend night, for 5 years.
Just a different mind set, which is always in my buried vision.

Not trying to be a hard case, just a young married man, with two young children, and a stay at home Wife. Working 40 hours a week, including Sat. morning. And working Thur/Fri/Sat nights, for cash. My Buddy's were in the Pub Fri/Sat. That was their life style, puffing on the unfiltered Woodbine's.

They are long dead.

I have calmed down a lot now, my last physical altercation, I was 69 YOA, in an Elevator, in Dayton Ohio. We were at a Firearms annual Seminar IALEFI.
My Wife at the buttons, me standing back.

A young White Guy, declared his intention.
"I need a hug!" As only My Wife, and I were only the other two occupants? I guess he did not mean me! I cured him of that thought. By wiping him into the rear of the small elevator.
Plus holding a cocktail glass in his right hand, moving towards my Guyanese Wife, was a definite No-No.

OldMarksman, I enjoyed these Chats. Keep Safe.

[Loosedhorse]

After thinking it over for a few days, I guess I don't have much objection to a carry rotation, within limits. I know of one nationally respected instructor who seems to wear a different pistol to pretty much each class he teaches; not sure if he changes once a week or once a month. And he competes with several different guns as well.

If your drawing-and-shooting motion (presuming a situation where you'd have to shoot immediately upon drawing) includes a sweeping motion of the thumb (to take off a safety), tight grip, and finger off trigger until you're on target, that would seem to work on any number of guns; for example:

1) 1911s and other guns with "sweepable" frame-mounted safeties.
2) Revolvers and semi-autos with no safety
3) Handguns with grip safeties like the 1911; or grip-actuators like the HK P7
4) Guns with lighter (~4 lb) or heavier (~8 lb) triggers
5) Guns with grip-actuated lasers

True, you'd probably best avoid:

1) Walther PPKs, Beretta 92s and other guns with frame mounted safeties, unless you keep the manual safety off (as many do with these DA/SA pistols)
2) Any gun with an "unusually" positioned safety (say a Baby Browning) or safety that takes something other than a simple sweep to disengage (say, S&W Shield); unless you keep the manual safety off.

And then, we could also look to the very different ways that different guns are handled for reloading: if you're used to the quick magazine changes of semi-autos, should you never carry a revolver? If you're used to quick speed-loader reloads for revolvers, never carry a semi-auto?

I'd certainly think that avoiding European heel-style magazine releases might be reasonable if you're used to the American-style button; maybe even avoiding P7s (as if that's an issue today) if you tend to put the magazine on the floor when trying to figure out how to release the slide.


Perhaps it goes without saying that, if you practice enough with any particular gun, when you pick it up your hand seems to "recognize" it and work it automatically (which can be to our detriment, if for example we allow an empty gun in our hands to "load itself" while we're thinking about something else).

But that does take practice and familiarization. I think we all agree that being in a gunfight and having to look at your handgun with the thought "Whatintheheckisthisthing?!!!!" is not a great self-defense tactic.

JMO

[Lohman446]

I have yet to hear someone reporting that they were concerned about legalities in the midst of a true life-or-death scenario. In fact, I am of the opinion that if one is truly thinking about legalities in the middle of a scenario, that is probably strong evidence that they shouldn't shoot. It's when all you're thinking about is how to save your life that shooting is justified.

I have at the shop a long counter about four three and a half feet tall and about two feet wide. One of the very few times someone has actually threatened me at work was on a Saturday while I was working alone. It was part of a few minute conversation that took about twenty seconds in to realize that the three people in here (two guys and a lady who did not add up to 400lbs between them) were high on something. One of them made the comment that "it isn't safe to work here alone" and put his hands face down on the counter - I expected he was going to try to jump it.

I recall distinctly thinking in that moment that I had never prepared to fight someone who was standing on a counter in front of me and that ground training was not relevant.

My "natural" reaction as I thought this was to take two or three steps back and put my hand on the pistol on my belt - which I am certain made it clear I was carrying because it moved the concealing shirt I was wearing.

Conversation ended, they decided to leave, I wished them good luck. Talked to an officer later in the day about it and offered him the security footageHe declined and basically shrugged it off and went with the "no harm no foul" theory.

The odd part for me is that even as I moved my mind decided to focus on a very specific bare spot in training.

[44 AMP]

If a group then starts to follow me or moves to intercept me, that's not completely unexpected--it's exactly what I was looking for.

Words matter, more than most people realize, and words that are easily taken one way in casual conversation can mean something else, or be made to seem like they mean something else, entirely, in court.

I believe the speaker intended to tell us the kind of behavior he was being alert to spot, so that he could avoid trouble.

HOWEVER, the exact words he used, read aloud in court would also support a prosecutor's claim that he intentionally sought out an encounter.

In his own words, "it's exactly what I was looking for!"
(note the use of italics here, to change then emphasis, while the words are still exactly the same, it will sound different, and give a different impression.

For an excellent example of this, I recommend the movie "My Cousin Vinny". (coarse language not suitable for younger viewers).

There are two scenes that show the principle I am referring to very well, I think, The first is where the kid confesses to the sheriff "I did it", thinking he was confessing to stealing a can of tuna from a convenience store. Unknown to the kid, the store clerk was shot and killed, shortly after he left, and the Sherriff believes the kid is confessing to the murder. Sherriff asks the kid, "at what point did you shoot the clerk?"

The kid is amazed, confused, and surprised, and answers with what from his tone of voice is obvious disbelief, "I shot the clerk????"

In a later scene the Sherriff, in court reads the statement, in a flat monotone, turning what was said as a question into a statement. "I shot the clerk."

Same exact words, two vastly different meanings. Don't EVER count on the context of anything you say being heard by the jury. Only count on the words you use being heard, shown in what ever light best aids the prosecutor's case.

Choose what you say, carefully. It can come back to bite you.

[Brit]

Why would you step back? Hands on counter, preparing to jump?

Step up to the counter the minute he puts his weight on his hands, cup your hand behind his wrist, pull forward! Your right hand, behind his right wrist.

When Mr. athlete falls awkwardly on counter top, shove him off it.

No muss, no fuss.

Choice #2. In order to spring on to counter, he has to shift his weight above his hands.
IE his face is in the center, more or less of your counter top. And moving towards you? You have now broken his nose! Right cross, straight left, take your pick. His forward motion helps the punch.

Use strong detergent to clean the blood up.

[Loosedhorse]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

In his own words, "it's exactly what I was looking for!"

Those are my words, but not all of my words: they have been removed from context, and that makes them easier to misinterpret (should one choose to).

My words were:
"If a group then starts to follow me or moves to intercept me, that's not completely unexpected--it's exactly what I was looking for.
"If that group then decides to attack (despite my changing direction away from them), that's also not completely unexpected; that possibility is why I decided to go armed in the first place, and why I went to condition orange."

That's a clear statement that I am alert to my surroundings, and LOOKING FOR signs of an impending attack precisely so I can change direction AWAY from the potential attackers; and that I go armed because I realize that simple avoidance may not always be enough to prevent that attack.

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

I believe the speaker intended to tell us the kind of behavior he was being alert to spot, so that he could avoid trouble.

Of course. I hope that the reason that you believe that (besides simply your generous spirit of giving everyone the benefit of the doubt) is that I made that clear, by both the context of that remark, and by the context provided by my other remarks at TFL.

A. The context of that post. I wrote the words you quoted in response to an assertion that "It is most likely that the confrontation will be completely unexpected." I was therefore talking about my alertness, and why I believe it is therefore not true that, when I am confronted (as in "confrontation") it will "most likely" be "completely unexpected."

B. The context of my other remarks in this forum:

--About what to do when a vehicle trespasses on your property:
"Umm, maybe:
"Call 911
"Videotape (be sure to get license plate if possible) from safe distance
"If they come after you...retreat as far as safely possible; then respond appropriately to any threat if forced to do so"

--About the proper attitude toward shooting in self-defense
"Originally Posted by Lohman446
"'I did not want to shoot and I only shot to stop the attack'
"Yes. The attack that I believed I could not safely retreat from, and that I believed would otherwise cause me grave injury or death.
"I think that sentiment, engraved on your heart as it were, is as important to your self-defense as to your legal defense."

And: "I would NEVER choose to use a round based on its being 'more lethal'...
"I would shoot to stop...
"No way, no how would I shoot to kill. Ever."

--About my previous experience in confrontations:
"I know how many times I've been approached in a threatening way, how many times I've been attacked...and how many times I've been surprised." Indicates that we're not talking zero experience here; and yet, somehow:

"...I've never had to fire a gun in self-defense..."

Perhaps it should be obvious that being alert is a violence-prevention strategy; and that by being alert I give myself the option of avoiding trouble before I'm even sure there IS any trouble; avoiding it well before an attack is imminent. And that's why I choose to argue the benefits of being alert (as opposed to implying that being alert doesn't matter because, no matter what, "It is most likely that the confrontation will be completely unexpected").

As one of my instructors mentioned, having to use lethal force to defend yourself is a failure: it means you are in mortal danger, and that EVERYTHING that you did or could have done to prevent that has failed.

Or, as Rory Miller puts it, self-defense is recovery from stupidity or bad luck. Self-defense is that short list of things that may get you out alive when you are already screwed.

Sounds to me very much like a self-defense situation is something I should work hard to avoid.

Hope that's clarified things, for any future plaintiff's attorneys and DAs out there.


Wow. It can sure take a long time to defend oneself around here. Not sure if your using my words for your example perhaps might appear to support the notion, "Why worry about 'iffy' modifications, since even a completely innocent remark or action can or will be twisted into something nefarious?"

[44 AMP]

Those are my words, but not all of my words: they have been removed from context, and that makes them easier to misinterpret (should one choose to).

Having some, but not all of your words used, and taken out of context WAS MY POINT.

IF you are ever so unfortunate that you do wind up in court, the opposing side will use any and everything to support their side of the story, and its is up to your defense to include what they leave out. They are under NO legal obligation to include all your remarks, OR put any of your remarks in proper context. Remember that while witnesses swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, the prosecutor DOES NOT.

Wow. It can sure take a long time to defend oneself around here. Not sure if your using my words for your example perhaps might appear to support the notion, "Why worry about 'iffy' modifications, since even a completely innocent remark or action can or will be twisted into something nefarious?"

Again, if you think its tough defending yourself around here, you really don't want to have to do it in court.

As to "iffy modifications" (assuming you mean some modification to your firearm), its your business to worry, or not, but if it's "iffy" why would you do it in the first place??

I don't see any sense in giving the guy taking shots at you MORE AMMO. Even if he keeps missing, the more shots he gets, the worse your odds. (and I'm talking about verbal shots at you in court, here, not actual gunfire)