The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old April 27, 2015, 04:55 PM   #51
stephen426
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 11, 2005
Posts: 3,587
The video shown has little to do with the use of lethal force against an unarmed individual. From the beginning of the video, it appears that both women are willing participants in the fight. While the outcome is certainly tragic, I doubt that anyone could have justifiably used lethal force against the victor of that fight. Once the girl began her seizure, the other girl got off her. The last few kicks were to the body and did not look to inflict any serious harm. The damage was certainly done when her head got bashed against the floor.

There have been many discussions about the sue of deadly force against unarmed individuals. The main thing argument always seems to come down to risking your life or risking your freedom. If you allow a potential assailant to get too close before you react, you will be behind the reactionary curve and put yourself in danger. If you draw too early, you are at risk of brandishing. You cannot really know if your potential assailant is unarmed until after the fact. If your physical condition is significantly worse (be it age or disability) than your attacker, the disparity of force will be much easier to prove. Similarly, if I am with my child and someone approaches in a threatening manner, I would not hesitate to draw if stern verbal warnings are ignored.

The best possible compromise is a less than lethal weapon such as a good pepper spray (foam is ideal). Obviously do not go looking for trouble, but be well prepared to defend yourself if trouble finds you.
__________________
The ATF should be a convenience store instead of a government agency!
stephen426 is offline  
Old April 27, 2015, 05:05 PM   #52
Tactical Jackalope
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 5, 2010
Location: Miami, Florida
Posts: 6,245
You're straying. The point of the video was to show that "unarmed" still means deadly.
Tactical Jackalope is offline  
Old April 27, 2015, 05:29 PM   #53
Banger357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 22, 2015
Posts: 109
If I'm attacked by a person, it is my responsibility to have the means to defend myself. Unfortunately, not being a psychic, I don't know if I'm likely to be attacked by a 7 ft tall MMA fighter on pcp, a 100 lb jealous ex girlfriend of my fiance, a mugger with a knife, a tweaker with a gun, a rapist with a really sharp pair of tweezers, or any other potential threat. I see having a ccw as the great equalizer. I don't care if/how the bad guy is armed. I know that physically I am likely not going to be able to take them on so I have my gun. I'd rather end up in prison, even unjustly, than most of the alternatives.

If some psycho hag decides to try to slam my head into the concrete I'd have no qualms about pulling and using my gun if necessary any more than I would a person who put their own gun in my face and told me to get in their windowless van.
Banger357 is offline  
Old April 27, 2015, 06:05 PM   #54
OldMarksman
Staff
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 3,836
Posted by Banger357:
Quote:
I see having a ccw as the great equalizer. I don't care if/how the bad guy is armed.
However you may see it, unless the attacker is armed or there is a clear disparity of force, centuries of trials tell us that the people who will decide will almost certainly see the use of your CCW as much more than necessary--more than "equal", if you will.

Discussing the Kimball case on tacticalproffessor, Claude Werner said this:
Quote:
...if Mr. Kimball had carried a can of pepper spray with him, he probably wouldn’t be facing the probability of spending the rest of his life behind bars. I hear many objections to carrying pepper spray. Without exception, they are foolish, yet speciously alluring. As the prosecutor commented about the Kimball case:

"People have a right to carry firearms, but the law only provides for use of firearms in defense in very limited and particular circumstances, and this was not one of them."

I would much rather carry a can of pepper spray than a spare magazine or a defensive knife.
Or as stephen426 put it,
Quote:
The best possible compromise is a less than lethal weapon such as a good pepper spray (foam is ideal). Obviously do not go looking for trouble, but be well prepared to defend yourself if trouble finds you.

Last edited by OldMarksman; April 27, 2015 at 07:11 PM.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old April 27, 2015, 06:11 PM   #55
mehavey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 5,278
...and how many of all of you who advocate less-than-lethal force, actually
carry LTLF w/ you in addition to a weapon?

I go back to the OP's original post -- a clear lethal situation developing
in 10's of seconds regardless of fault -- and what to do about it other
than walk away saying tsk, tsk tsk.
mehavey is offline  
Old April 27, 2015, 07:02 PM   #56
stephen426
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 11, 2005
Posts: 3,587
Constantine,

I was not trying to stray off topic. Any confrontation can turn deadly if you lose control of your weapon. I just turned 40. While I am still in decent physical shape (round is a shape), I would not want to go hand to hand against a younger and stronger adversary. Under-estimating your opponent (over estimating your own abilities) is one of the dumbest mistakes one can make.

As gun owners, we have a very real responsibility to ourselves and to others around us. Improper use of a firearm will land you in jail and you may lose your right to ever own a gun again. We have a responsibility to be proficient with our weapons so we minimize our chances of hitting bystanders. A gun has the ability to easily take someone's life and it is not a responsibility I take lightly.

I carry a knife pretty much every day (unless I am traveling and can't bring one). I carry my gun fairly regularly but not daily. I need to buy some more pepper sprays. Mine is expired.
__________________
The ATF should be a convenience store instead of a government agency!
stephen426 is offline  
Old April 27, 2015, 07:05 PM   #57
dayman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Location: The Woods
Posts: 1,197
I don't think "duty to retreat" was the issue with the Kimball case. The question was whether he had reason to be in fear of his life.

I would assume that getting shoved and told to leave isn't cause to kill anyone in any state.
There was also the big issue of whether he had gone there (armed, and after a few drinks) with the intention of getting into a fight.

As far as the OP, I'd think, in most caseses, it would be hard to justify using lethal force against an unarmed person if they haven't actually assaulted you.
If you don't have something less lethal to deploy, and you are in fear that things are going to go south, it might be a good idea to simply draw your gun and tell them to go away. That might make the attacker think twice about continuing the assault, and would put you in a better position to fire if it does turn into an actual assault.

I know that "brandishing" is considered a crime (or, has the same threshold as shooting) in a lot of areas, so you'd still want to call the police and make a report.
However, brandishing is probably less likely to be prosecuted than shooting - particularly if you call it on and explain yourself. Shooting someone who isn't seemed and hasn't actually harmed you seems like it's inviting some nasty charges/press.

Taking a hit or two isn't pleasant, but probably more pleasant than explaining to a jury that you killed a person because you thought they were probably going to hit you. Or beyond the potential legal problems, why of your just misread the situation?

I'm a bigish, scaryish looking guy. I run in the park with headphones from time to time, and after a few miles tend to kind of zone out.
I certainly hope some paranoid old codger doesn't decide to shoot me someday because he's convinced I'm chasing him, and I don't hear him tell me to stop.
dayman is offline  
Old April 27, 2015, 07:10 PM   #58
stephen426
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 11, 2005
Posts: 3,587
@ mehavey,

If there is the POSSIBILITY to retreat SAFELY, it SHOULD be done IRREGARDLESS of the DUTY TO RETREAT. Even a good shoot will complicate your life significantly. You may be prosecute by an overly aggressive DA, you may be sued by the family of the deceased/injured, you and your family may be threatened (especially if the person you shot was a gang member). We all believe in better judged by 12 than carried by 6 or else we would not own and carry guns.

You say that you can see a
Quote:
a clear lethal situation developing
in 10's of seconds regardless of fault
Developing means that it has not fully developed yet. Based on the timing of your reaction, you may either be ahead of the curve or behind the curve. Timing it just perfectly would probably be really hard. I'd rather be ahead of the curve with less than lethal force. You may have your own opinions of which you are very much entitled to. I'm just stating what I'd rather do and what I feel would give me some level of protection without overly complicating my life.
__________________
The ATF should be a convenience store instead of a government agency!
stephen426 is offline  
Old April 27, 2015, 07:38 PM   #59
mehavey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 5,278
Quote:
If there is the POSSIBILITY to retreat SAFELY, it SHOULD be done IRREGARDLESS of the DUTY TO RETREAT.
RTP. Someone else is in deadly risk of death/lethal brain injury, and with no means of retreat.

Do something? (and if so, what?)
or walk away.

You have 3 seconds....
Decide.*




* (actually,I believe you have already told me what you decided.)

.

Last edited by mehavey; April 27, 2015 at 07:44 PM.
mehavey is offline  
Old April 27, 2015, 07:45 PM   #60
Moomooboo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 25, 2014
Posts: 203
I should just point out irregardless is not a word.

But there is a dtuy to retrear but also the ability to protect others from loss of life limb or eyesight....wish you guys would watch that mas ayoob video instead of living jn ignorance.
Moomooboo is offline  
Old April 27, 2015, 07:53 PM   #61
mehavey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 5,278
I think you've just pointed out the hard nut conundrum. <smile>
mehavey is offline  
Old April 27, 2015, 11:58 PM   #62
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 22,233
Quote:
The point of the video was to show that "unarmed" still means deadly.
It CAN mean deadly depending on the circumstances. It's just as dangerous (from the standpoint of legal danger) to assume it always does as it is (from the standpoint of physical danger) to assume it always doesn't.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old April 28, 2015, 06:33 AM   #63
mehavey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 5,278
John, the word 'always' should be used sparingly, if at all; and the phrase 'walk away' should be used as often as possible.
But it is decision made in the midst of incomplete information that one lives with -- for better or for worse -- always.
mehavey is offline  
Old April 28, 2015, 07:04 AM   #64
OldMarksman
Staff
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 3,836
Posted by mehavey:
Quote:
I go back to the OP's original post -- a clear lethal situation developing in 10's of seconds regardless of fault -- and what to do about it other than walk away saying tsk, tsk tsk.
"Regardless of fault"? The problem is, unless one has a basis for a reasonable belief that another person would be justified in the use of force to defend himself (that is, was not at fault), one may not lawfully use force to intervene.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old April 28, 2015, 07:27 AM   #65
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 2,076
I don't know, its hard to prove self defense against someone who has no arms.

Sorry, need to lighten this up.
zincwarrior is offline  
Old April 28, 2015, 07:31 AM   #66
mehavey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 5,278
Quote:
unless one has a basis for a reasonable belief that another person would be justified in the use of force to defend himself (that is, was not at fault), one may not lawfully use force to intervene.
I'm sorry, but that is flat wrong.
The deliberate killing of another person who is helpless to defend
himself and/or do further harm is murder -- regardless of fault or cause.
mehavey is offline  
Old April 28, 2015, 08:10 AM   #67
OldMarksman
Staff
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 3,836
Posted by mehavey:
Quote:
I'm sorry, but that [(unless one has a basis for a reasonable belief that another person would be justified in the use of force to defend himself (that is, was not at fault), one may not lawfully use force to intervene)] is flat wrong.
I'm sure you believe that, but you need to look into it.

In some jurisdictions, one may lawfully use deadly force to defend third persons only if those third parsons are connected with the defender in certain specified ways--spouse, parent, child, etc..

In at least one state, any third person may be lawfully defended though the use of force, provided that that person would in fact be legally justified in defending himself--regardless of what the defender may have believed at the time. That was the general rule for a long time.

I described a newer and much more common rule, in which the defender must simply have a reasonable belief that the apparent intended victim would be entitled to use force to defend himself.

See this for a general discussion.

The legal right to use force to prevent harm does not exist if a person was committing a crime of violence; if a person had started an altercation and had not made clear his intention to stop; or in the case of mutual combat.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old April 28, 2015, 09:26 AM   #68
mehavey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 5,278
Point taken...
(Which makes life all the more difficult, ... and isolated these days.)
mehavey is offline  
Old April 28, 2015, 10:22 AM   #69
pax
Staff
 
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: In a state of flux
Posts: 7,519
As much as it sucks to learn these things through research and discussion, learning them through experience would suck even more.

pax
__________________
Kathy Jackson
My personal website: Cornered Cat
pax is offline  
Old April 28, 2015, 10:37 AM   #70
OldMarksman
Staff
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 3,836
Posted by pax:
Quote:
As much as it sucks to learn these things through research and discussion, learning them through experience would suck even more.
That is very true, and it applies to a lot of things, including such things as
  • what to do when there is a noise in the house
  • whether to go outside with a gun to investigate a problem
  • the "fleeing felon" scenario
  • what to do about a trespasser
  • what "stand your ground" really means, and what it does not mean
  • what to do about property
  • the idea of detaining someone for any reason
  • the idea of displaying a firearm.....

On that last one, I think the first thing that one should do before pulling a gun (unless there is clear evidence that the need to shoot exists then and there) is ask, "what is it that I intend to do with this thing?".
OldMarksman is offline  
Old April 28, 2015, 11:59 AM   #71
Brit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 29, 2005
Location: Orlando FL
Posts: 1,590
Some "Pulling gun" scenarios are kind of simple.

IE, We live in a wee townhouse, no one has access, but my Wife and I, if we are both in bed, noise down stairs? Pull gun.

Grand Children in house, (2&4) holstered concealed, Glock 19, no round chambered. Ultra cautious old Granddad, me!
Brit is offline  
Old April 29, 2015, 01:10 PM   #72
Grant D
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 14, 2011
Location: Brazos County, Texas
Posts: 1,038
When I see these unarmed story's, they always make me think about the two soccer refs that took one punch to the head and died.
Sometimes fists are a deadly weapon. At 66 years old I would rather not take the punch to find out if I can take it or not.
Grant D is offline  
Old April 29, 2015, 01:17 PM   #73
OldMarksman
Staff
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 3,836
Posted by Grant D:
Quote:
Sometimes fists are a deadly weapon.
Sometimes a punch can result in death, but in most cases the use of fists does not fall under the legal definition of deadly force.

Quote:
At 66 years old I would rather not take the punch to find out if I can take it or not.
Nor would I, but there are acceptable ways to avoid finding out, and there are ways that can lead to extremely serious consequences.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old April 29, 2015, 01:34 PM   #74
mehavey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 5,278
If you want to get really scared, just read through some of the vagaries encompassed in the case law:

http://www.virginia1774.org/Page5.html

(and Virginia's one of the "good" states)

.
mehavey is offline  
Old April 29, 2015, 07:02 PM   #75
FireForged
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 1999
Location: Rebel South USA
Posts: 1,758
I typically fall back on the old use of force diagram.. Ability, Opportunity and Jeopardy. Jeopardy being a very key element. When I use the term jeopardy, I am not talking about a punch in the mouth, I am referring to real peril.
__________________
Life is a web woven by necessity and chance...
FireForged is offline  
Reply

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 04:22 AM.


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 0.09512 seconds with 8 queries