Deadly force or no?

[WIN71]

Now let me get this straight 3gun. The monkey stomp is out but the rest of my plan is still ok ?

[rgoers]

Maybe you could BOTH do the monkey stomp... Put out a hat, and hope folks throw a few coins in. Then you could afford to take him to lunch and discuss the whole needle-threat thing. If he's still being a threat, at least you shoot him on a full stomach. You KNOW how long the wait can be in the ER... wouldn't want his stomach growling while he's waiting to get the all the bullet holes plugged.

Speaking of lunch, doesn't California law mandate that you take a mugger/rapist/murderer out to lunch and try to "talk it out" before actually shooting them? I know Bloomberg and Clinton are pushing for that law in NY.

[threegun]

Win, I thought you were joking about robbing the robber LOL.

[WIN71]

But actually I was joking about the whole thing. Sorry for the confusion.

[threegun]

I'm slow LOL.

[prussianblue50]

If you are honestly in fear of your life-shoot to stop.

[David Armstrong]

Why should I give him money and let him go on his merry way?

Because that offers the greatest chance for a favorable outcome. As others have already pointed out, if he is that close to you the chance of you being able to draw, engage, and stop him are fairly low. Similarly, H2H poses a substantial risk of getting stuck. Giving him what he wants will probably get him to move on, anything else actually increases the chance of danger to you. Plus, assuming everything works out well, would you rather give up the small amount of stuff on you, or give up $20,000 in legal fees? Besides, if he doesn't go on his way, none of the other dynamics have changed. You can still try any of the other oprions you might want.

[AAshooter]

To spring board off of David's comments, your defense in court is also much better since you truly tried non-lethal ways to resolve the case.

[MikeRussell]

First, my actions in this scenario. On the assumption of intimate range, which I would've never allowed in the first place, I would engage immediately (though it would probably be with an edged weapon as it's quicker to employ than to try to draw and shoot). Even at distances that I would allow, if he continued to press the issue or advanced, I'd engage with a firearm. A threat of serious bodily harm with what is now a bioweapon has been made. A 0.3% infection rate may or may not be acceptable in a clinical situation, but out on the streets you have no venue for immediate action to prevent or hinder infection like a healthcare professional possesses in the clinic/hospital. What the person has done is threaten to murder me (though it's a slow way to go, I prefer not to go before my time). That constitutes lethal force, regardless of his threat turns out to be true (needle is HIV infected) or not (just some leftover smack in it).

First law of combat/war/anything, DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE YOUR OPPONENT. Feeling that junkies are easily overpowered is fine for hypotheticals, it doesn't always work in the real world. In the scenario, the person is assumed to be a heroine junky, that may or may not be the truth. Either way, under the influence of controlled substances, pain is felt differently and that person may be more difficult to subdue as originally thought. If that person happens to be a haggard looking PCP junky, you'll have a much larger battle on your hands than you thought and anything short of mortally wounding them will more than likely not stop them.

Next, what's to say that giving up your items will have the expected outcome. Obviously if the guy has a threat that works on you for a few items, why not press for more. If he is willing to make such a threat on your person, what is to say that he is telling the truth that he will leave when he gets what he originally demanded?

I don't carry a taser, so my only options are hand to hand (not willing to engage due to various reasons, but most of all due to the assailant being armed with a potentially deadly weapon and I'm not into suicide at this time) and escalation to lethal force (edged weapon--not happening as I wouldn't allow him into my comfort zone-- or firearm). He's getting shot.

[Duxman]

Thanks for the insight guys.

I also agree with a 0.03% chance is not acceptable to me. There is no way I would take a chance to being infected by some druggie.

[David Armstrong]

Next, what's to say that giving up your items will have the expected outcome.

Nothing, just like whipping out your gun/knife and engaging right off the bat does not insure the expected outcome either. The point of giving up the goodies is that it gives the best chance that nothing particularly untoward will occur, and is probably the least costly in the long run. And as mentioned, if it doesn't work you still have the option of escalating the response. Lots of upside, very little downside.

[wolverine350]

i would take it a threat of serious bodily harm being it aids, id shoot the guy and put him out of his misery and him being a menace to society