The Firing Line Forums

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old April 21, 2018, 06:52 AM   #1
OhioGuy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 11, 2016
Posts: 823
Some scenarios for use of deadly force

I had a quick discussion with a few other CCW-ers this week...unsurprisingly there were disagreements. It focused on some hypothetical robbery scenarios. Let's assume you're stuck and cannot retreat, and...

1. Guy comes up to you, pulls a gun from his pants, and says "Give me your wallet or I'll kill you."

2. Same deal, but he only lifts his shirt and shows you the grip of his gun...but doesn't draw it.

3. Same deal, but he puts his hand under his shirt in what looks like a gun-gripping, getting-ready-to-draw move...but you never see a gun, just his hand disappearing under his shirt.

4. Same deal, but he only says "I have a gun...give me your wallet or I'll kill you."

Everyone (meaning a small group of non-lawyers) pretty much agreed that #1 justifies deadly force, but you're probably better off just complying because you can't out-draw his bullet (or go to some hypothetical scenario of attempting to distract him, so you have the opportunity to draw...which all sounded pretty fictitious to me)

Everyone agreed #4 would never pass muster as justifiable use of deadly force.

But opinions were split on the middle two.

Thoughts?
OhioGuy is offline  
Old April 21, 2018, 07:21 AM   #2
OldMarksman
Staff
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 3,833
Think about it this way:

Would the triers of fact, based on the evidence provided to them,
  • believe that the actor, had reason to beleive, based on what he knew at the time, that the use of force, deasly or otherwise, had been immediately necessary to prevent death or injury, and
  • did the actor acually believe that?

In most jurisdictions, those conditions would be necessary and sufficient to justify the presentation of a weapon by the defender. Whether the usual use of the weapon would be justified (necessary) would depend on what then happened.

Let's consider #2 for a moment. How long would it take for the man to draw? The idea that one may not lawfully use a firearm until a perp has actually reached for a gun is a figment of imagination, probably stemming from screen fiction written for dramatic effect.

On 3 and 4, do you really have to see a gun, or see an action consistent with an attempt to draw a gun, to have a reasonable belief that the perp has the ability and the opportunity to seriously harm you, and that you are in jeopardy?
OldMarksman is offline  
Old April 21, 2018, 07:23 AM   #3
Lohman446
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 22, 2016
Posts: 1,768
The cost of a successful use of lethal force is much higher than what you are carrying in your wallet.
Lohman446 is offline  
Old April 21, 2018, 07:29 AM   #4
OldMarksman
Staff
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 3,833
Quote:
The cost of a successful use of lethal force is much higher than what you are carrying in your wallet.
That would be pertinent to the issue only if preventing the loss of the wallet were the objective.

But it will never be.

Robbery is a crime against persons. It is not a property crime.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old April 21, 2018, 10:33 AM   #5
FireForged
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 1999
Location: Rebel South USA
Posts: 1,733
Quote:
The cost of a successful use of lethal force is much higher than what you are carrying in your wallet.
sure,.. and I wouldn't be using that kind of force to protect my wallet. Its not really about the wallet its about perceived jeopardy.
__________________
Life is a web woven by necessity and chance...
FireForged is offline  
Old April 21, 2018, 11:01 AM   #6
TXAZ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: McMurdo Sound Texas
Posts: 3,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lohman446 View Post
The cost of a successful use of lethal force is much higher than what you are carrying in your wallet.
^^^^^^
A class I attended in Phoenix had a gun rights lawyer speak. He noted a "good shoot" would likely cost you $7-10K. A questionable shoot might be up to $100K.

That doesn't include the cost of the mental anguish and PTSD you're going to experience after the fact.
__________________
!أنا لست إرهابياً
TXAZ is offline  
Old April 21, 2018, 12:30 PM   #7
T. O'Heir
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 10,796
"...#1 justifies deadly force..." If the bad guy has a gun in your face, give him your wallet. You ain't Bill Hickok and you ain't in Dodge. You're not Quick Draw McGraw either.
#2, 3 or 4 have no immediate threat to your life.
As mentioned, any use of force will require you to justify yourself and even if you are found justified, that will not stop the bad guy's next of kin suing you for wrongful death.
"...cost you $7-10K...up to $100K..." In Arizona. Be different in every State. $500 to a grand per hour for a criminal lawyer in Ohio.
__________________
Spelling and grammar count!
T. O'Heir is offline  
Old April 21, 2018, 01:44 PM   #8
OldMarksman
Staff
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 3,833
Quote:
A class I attended in Phoenix had a gun rights lawyer speak. He noted a "good shoot" would likely cost you $7-10K. A questionable shoot might be up to $100K.
How would that layer assess the cost of death or cropping injury if deadly force is not used?

Quote:
#2, 3 or 4 have no immediate threat to your life.
Maybe, and maybe not. But the questions are, would the defender have a reasonable basis for believing otherwise, base on what or she knows at the time, and would he or she actually believe otherwise?
OldMarksman is offline  
Old April 21, 2018, 03:37 PM   #9
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 19,875
Try the various shots in a FOF with airsoft and then evaluate whether you think you should or not on a practical basis. Just something to add to the legal considerations.

We did #3 drills to see if we could stop the draw. I could at times, just saying.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old April 21, 2018, 03:58 PM   #10
TXAZ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: McMurdo Sound Texas
Posts: 3,578
Quote:
How would that layer assess the cost of death or cropping injury if deadly force is not used?
The issue he was pointing out was don’t pull a gun unless you are going to use it, and it’s going to cost you to do so. And yes you have to decide if you want to be judged by 12 or carried by 6 (or maimed somewhere in the middle.)
__________________
!أنا لست إرهابياً
TXAZ is offline  
Old April 21, 2018, 05:07 PM   #11
FireForged
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 1999
Location: Rebel South USA
Posts: 1,733
I don't think its about the particular scenario but rather the existence or absence of some very specific elements. Of course it goes without saying that laws and standards may vary from place to place.

some of those elements could be

ability to harm
opportunity to harm
existence of actual jeopardy*

*Jeopardy being ( life threatening)
__________________
Life is a web woven by necessity and chance...
FireForged is offline  
Old April 21, 2018, 05:28 PM   #12
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 7,836
I think it depends on the the entire situation in all four; but I wouldn't say "never" on number 4 since I know similar situations have been found justified in real life.

I can say that if you can get out of that situation by giving up your wallet, that's probably the best deal you are going to get in that situation. All the other options include a risk of serious injury or death and you'll have to be carrying something gold in that wallet before that isn't the cheaper option.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old April 21, 2018, 06:16 PM   #13
Sharkbite
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 2013
Location: Western slope of Colorado
Posts: 3,125
Quote:
We did #3 drills to see if we could stop the draw. I could at times, just saying.
.

I would like to know HOW you stopped the draw in FOF scenarios like #3 above? Simply putting a round in his chest will not necessarily stop his draw. We see dash cam (and other video) of handgun rounds taking 10,20,30 seconds OR LONGER to stop an assailant.

Thats one of the problems with simunition training...no one really acts like they have been really shot. Either they keep going forever or they stop fighting immediately upon being hit
Sharkbite is offline  
Old April 21, 2018, 06:32 PM   #14
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 19,875
Sometimes, you have get physical. That's HOW! Everything isn't always a move to the gun.

If you want to train with live ammo in a close contact situation, can we have your stuff? We did use Code Eagle, not sims.

I once even disarmed someone in another FOF and shot that person with their own gun! That was a sims Glock.

However, in another situation I was shot to pieces when I went for the gun.

That's why we practice. If you want to say that such are useless, then we have little to talk about.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old April 21, 2018, 06:55 PM   #15
Sharkbite
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 2013
Location: Western slope of Colorado
Posts: 3,125
What i asked was HOW? No need to get snippy. I teach (have for decades) intergrated use of force skills. Not many on this forum think of any solution other then gun-fu.

Again, i asked how...you answered. Thanks.
Sharkbite is offline  
Old April 21, 2018, 07:01 PM   #16
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 19,875
Well, the bold and HOW, seemed a touch snippy to me. But no problem.

Even an old FOG like me can take some training in other than gun-fu. I did recently take a course on Alpine cheeses - just being funny.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old April 21, 2018, 08:41 PM   #17
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 1,893
All four could be found justifiable, under some state laws. In general (BIG generalisation), if a reasonable person would believe they were in danger of death, and there are not lesser reasonable alternatives, the use of lethal force in self defense is permissible.
raimius is offline  
Old April 22, 2018, 02:01 AM   #18
hdwhit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 22, 2017
Posts: 971
Quote:
OhioGuy wrote:
Everyone agreed #4 would never pass muster as justifiable use of deadly force.
What you're fishing for is an answer to the question, "When is it okay to use deadly force?". Unfortunately, you are not addressing the salient question, which is, "When do I have no alternative than to use deadly force?"

Looked at it in that way, the fact is that any pets relocated
hdwhit is offline  
Old April 22, 2018, 06:14 AM   #19
Scoits
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2017
Posts: 178
How do you know that after your wallet is taken the person shoots you anyway?
Scoits is offline  
Old April 22, 2018, 06:57 AM   #20
OhioGuy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 11, 2016
Posts: 823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts View Post
I think it depends on the the entire situation in all four; but I wouldn't say "never" on number 4 since I know similar situations have been found justified in real life.

I can say that if you can get out of that situation by giving up your wallet, that's probably the best deal you are going to get in that situation. All the other options include a risk of serious injury or death and you'll have to be carrying something gold in that wallet before that isn't the cheaper option.
It does depend, always, sure.

As to your second point, I would believe (but I'm not on my own jury) that if the guy has threatened to kill me and has indicated a means of doing so (a drawn gun, a brandished gun, even body language showing there's something hidden that will kill me) -- I would believe that I am already in imminent danger of death. After all, it's hardly unheard of for someone to comply with a criminal, hand over a wallet or watch or whatever, and then be shot anyway.

Anyone who would be willing to kill to steal, or even pretend to be to terrify someone, can't be trusted to have any regard for human life. If I had some way to know he'd just take the wallet and run, yeah, I'd give him the wallet and wait for him to use a stolen credit card and get arrested like low-brow thieves usually do. Even if I were fully justified and had a panel of lawyers standing with me, I'd give him the wallet if I knew that would end the situation. I have no desire to ever harm anyone.

But the very event of being robbed by someone willing to kill me to do so, would also lead me to believe I have a very good chance of being "carried by six" no matter what I give him.
OhioGuy is offline  
Old April 22, 2018, 07:06 AM   #21
OhioGuy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 11, 2016
Posts: 823
Quote:
Originally Posted by hdwhit View Post
What you're fishing for is an answer to the question, "When is it okay to use deadly force?". Unfortunately, you are not addressing the salient question, which is, "When do I have no alternative than to use deadly force?"

Looked at it in that way, the fact is that any pets relocated
Good point -- at least I wasn't being explicit about it.

In my mind, at least the first 3 scenarios represent (to me) no alternative other than to use deadly force. At least, no alternative that will ensure I come out unharmed. (Of course, using deadly force still doesn't assure I come out unharmed). I can try to run, but I can't outrun a bullet. Will he shoot me if I run? Maybe, maybe not, but I'm not going to bet my life on it.

I can give him my wallet, for sure, which is my only option if I'm not armed (or Steven Segal in his heyday) and hope he runs. Probably, he'll take it and run. But it's hardly unheard of for someone to give up their goods to a robber and still end up being shot anyway.

There's no good answer to any of these other than "don't be there in the first place." Could draw and shoot the guy and get shot in return. Could draw, shoot and miss. Could shoot and stop him, and then learn he had two armed thug friends around the corner waiting for him.

I guess in my mind, in any of those scenarios (and especially the first two), the only thought in my mind would be "most likely this guy isn't going to let me see my kids again." How I respond, I don't know, but I would assume nothing other than that I am in immediate mortal danger, that he has the intent and opportunity. Using force against him my still be a terrible idea, but that would be my going in assumption. All these scenarios have left me with no credible options other than deadly force to stop his imminent threat.
OhioGuy is offline  
Old April 22, 2018, 12:05 PM   #22
Don Fischer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2017
Posts: 1,336
If someone just wanted my wallet, I'd like to think I'd give him the wallet. He pulls out a gun and I pull out a gun. A guy with a gun in a pocket, holster ect may be a threat but not until a real move is made for the gun. A guy walk's up and point's a gun in my face and demands my wallet, I give it up and wait for a reasonable chance to go after him. Do not shoot the bad guy in the back!
Don Fischer is offline  
Old April 22, 2018, 12:20 PM   #23
OldMarksman
Staff
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 3,833
Quote:
A guy with a gun in a pocket, holster ect may be a threat but not until a real move is made for the gun.
Do you really believe that an attempt to draw the gun would be prerequisite to establishing the existence of ability, opportunity, and jeopardy?

Quote:
A guy walk's up and point's a gun in my face and demands my wallet, I give it up and wait for a reasonable chance to go after him.
What then?

Quote:
Do not shoot the bad guy in the back!
Good thinking!
OldMarksman is offline  
Old April 22, 2018, 05:04 PM   #24
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 19,875
Quote:
I give it up and wait for a reasonable chance to go after him
Why? To get that condom back from your wallet? Sure you will win the fight? Give it up and say: Whoppee! I'm alive and unhurt!

Then call who you need for cards, insurance, to get you covered financially.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old April 22, 2018, 05:20 PM   #25
Pep in CA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2016
Posts: 188
Quote:
I give it up and wait for a reasonable chance to go after him
Why? To get that condom back from your wallet? Sure you will win the fight? Give it up and say: Whoppee! I'm alive and unhurt!
Correct. Once the potentially deadly threat is over, do not go after the perp. Be relieved that you survived the encounter and call the police instead.
Pep in CA 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 08:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.11653 seconds with 8 queries