Posted: 6/13/2007 1:14:31 PM EDT
|
Help me understand this guys because I'm having a hard time getting past my feelings here. By the way, no offense, but please don't post BS answers. I'm looking for serious discussion. I have done alot of reading here and on combatcarry.com forums. I am having a real hard time with the "advice" that is commonly given about when or if you should draw a weapon to defend or what constitutes a large enough threat, etc. 1st off you need to understand I DO NOT advocate or feel that we as CHL holder's are plain dress police or John Wayne’s out itching for a fight. Using deadly force is a serious thing and I understand that. Here is my dilemma. I am often comically amazed at how much talk goes about holsters, gun types, how many magazines to carry, bullet types, and all other "tough" type discussion. Just look at the “show what’s in your pocket” thread. Geeez some of you guys walk around with enough weaponry to sustain you in a 3 hour firefight with a platoon of taliban and have enough left over to still go the range.  But as soon as any situation shows up where you might NEED some of that, everyone starts posting how you should run from all threats, NEVER help anyone that is in need, ONLY be a good witness, etc. I did not get my CHL to become a vanishing expert when things get hot........now again, I am NOT saying the opposite either, I don't go around looking for trouble. I fully understand that brandishing, escalating, and other over the top actions are crazy and will get you some serious legal trouble and possible jail time. To illustrate what I'm trying to say, read the blackbelt thread here. It seems almost everyone is saying "you need to get beat up a little first, then, once you can tell you can't win, use your gun"..........are you crazy??? To me, if a person confronts me with obvious criminal intent, I must assume that he has deadly intent and is CAPABLE of using it. That doesn't mean instantly draw, but I will be damned if I am going to "see how dangerous" he is by letting them get to me or my family. There is a specific case I know of where a CHL holder got himself beat so badly that, even though he did eventually draw and shoot, he is now PERMANETLY brain damaged, lost vision in one eye and if I remember correctly lost the full function of one half of his body. I don't know all the details but I can almost bet his fear of litigation is what prevented him stopping the threat much sooner. Does what I'm asking make sense? Like I said, I need help getting my feelings around this. I read my CHL handbook all the time, especially the deadly force laws. I hope I never need to take a life. Bottom line, I got my CHL to have a means to stop the BG's from harming or killing me, my family, or an innocent 3rd party that is obviously in serious need of intervention (aka the VT slaughter, Killeen’s Luby's , etc). |
I'm with you and understand what you are saying. I don't want to take any chances, I not only think about a person killing me but also disabling or disfiguring me as they are both the same as dead in my eyes. I hope I'm never in the position to have to draw that line. |
personal choice--whoever wants to carry whatever w/ em is up to them and thier discression and what their situations warrant...when the SHTF, it hits some choose to carry a primary and a BUG and a couple spares; some just a spare/two, etc; some none; some a good holster, others none; some want the "best" ammo or caliber available, others dont really care...YMMV 
this kinda conflicts w/ your previous statement:
if you are intent on helping someone you dont know who is in the vicinity of danger (depending on the situation), then you become that 'plain dress police'....of course, this is another one of those personal decisions to act on a stranger's behalf who may or may not be in danger (what may be danger to you might actually be harmless in the entire situation) FWIW: sometimes, its best to just be that good witness and not do anything or walk away...other times, it might be best to intervene being a CHL doesnt entitle you to stay or be a "vanishing expert", for it'd be the same if you didnt have a CCW; all the licence does is provide the state's ok for you to CCW--whether you choose to get involved in a fight that was not specified to you/someone you know, then thats a personal call
"blackblet thread"
+1
you're refering to the fact that if a CCW is faced w/ an "unarmed", yet dangerous threat, then the CCWer should go ahead and draw down and not piddle w/ hand-to-hand, right? if so, then 'yes'...b/c an unwanted feloneous attack on me/anyone i know is threat enough for me--YMMV (as your state's laws)
uh, cant help w/ that...i think you are worrying too much about it 
+1--cant argue there...but then, how many CCWers dont have the same base reasons? |
Believe me, I understand where you're coming from.
You may see that, I may see that, but the DA might not see it that way. And, in many states, the law's not written that way. For instance, here in NC, we have a "duty to retreat". Deadly force is only authorized if you're confronted with deadly force, and have no way to retreat. I think it's bogus, but I'm not going to do 20 years for murder 2 if I see a way out. Fistfights are not deadly force (although they may lead to deadly force). Strongarm robbery, by itself, is not usually deadly force. It's a very fine line. Most folks here are (or say they are) armed to the teeth "just in case". That's my reason. Most folks here, I'd wager, are also savvy enough to recognize a situation that could go south in a hurry, and take steps to avoid it. |
|
Brasilia, you seem to be a very even handed individual. You've expressed the same fears that most responsible gun owners have struggled with. I believe that if the Situation arises you'll likely make a defensible decision. I mean you've labored over the problems, and reasoned out scenarios enough to take the edge off some of the tensions in a situation. The mental prep you've done will help you be an extra second or two ahead of the decision. I believe from a legal standpoint a Loud verbal warning to "STOP", "GET ON THE GROUND", etc. will carry a lot of water in a court. However, in the moment, all the legal shit don't keep blood in your body. Just my opinion. I'd rather be alive in prison than dead in a box. By the way I have no experience with this, and don't really want any. |
|
The biggest problem I see, is people are more skeptical to draw, because they feel that it should warrant their shooting suspect. So instantly they think, is what this is about to happen warranting me killing this man, versus, any other alternative, think in a high intensity situation, your thought process is that simple. Well, think of other options, thinking and rationalizing it will make it easier to deal with the stress, training will make it easier to react, practice will make your reactions and skills better when you need it. You need to educate yourself and you need to think outside of the box. Honestly, when I get my CHL, and it will be when. I plan on carrying a pocket knife (which I carry everywhere, anyway, not a spring assisted, high speed low draw knife, just my gerber, which I've had forever, and is a great knife.) My firearm and a spare magazine, maybe down the road, a BUG, maybe. Get a large caliber and a spare magazine, I want night sights, but a flashlight, again maybe, if it can be integrated well. But I see what you're saying, with the can of OC, Flash light, two spare mags, primary, secondary revolver, clip spring assisted blade, keys, cell phone, wallet, watch, etc. That's alot of crap to carry, a spare mag is a must in my opinion, in that, like others have said, you may have more than one suspect, or you may have some kind of malfunction with the other, who knows, it's a good option and I see that, maybe two extras'd be nice, but I feel that'd be beyond concealment. OC, a good non-lethal alternative, maybe I should look at it. A knife, carry one anyway. Flash light, I wouldn't but okay, laser back ups, eh. The way I see it, you can justify anything by saying, well you feel endangered enough or responsible enough for your own safety to carry a gun, why not, this, or this, etc, etc. Personal opinion, Gun, Knife (maybe, if you don't want one or use one, fine), Spare Mag. That's what I'd carry for defense, beyond that, cell phone, keys, wallet, watch, I feel like batman already. EDIT: One thing, that I might put some stock in that's been recommended and is kind of catching on as a trend, is different colored night sights, make sense, with your adrenaline going, having like an orange or green front sight and two rear yellow or orange (of course not matching) or whatever color you like, just the contrast, to always know where your front sight is. Ed Brown took it a step further in their Sheriff (his name escapes me) Special, with just an orange front sight and I think two white dots non night site rear sights, (I couldn't find the catalog, that I have around somewhere.) the emphasis was on quick close quarters drawing, and just knowing which was your front. It makes sense to me. |
I am a CHL instructor. Your questions lead me to believe you need better instruction regarding chapter 9 of the penal code. It is not an easy read, but once you "get" it, it all becomes pretty clear. Where abouts in Texas Are you? I think it is wise that you are asking the questions, and that you recognize the disparity in the perceived attitudes here. ;) |
|
Being a CCW holder that carries everywhere, and a poster in the blackbelt thread, I have just these short points to make.. 1. In the BB thread, I made it clear that one must choose ones own path. Most places that allow deadly self defense, only allow it if your own "life or limb" is in jeopardy and you are in your home, or in a "no mandatory retreat" state. If you are about to get your ass kicked but the guy is not out to kill you or seriously hurt you beyond an asskicking, you will have a tough time defending yourself nevermind living with yourself if you kill the guy. 2. In general people simultaneously advocate two viewpoints. The first is that you, as a Good Person (tm) should stick up for yourself, your friends, your family, and innocents around you. If this means intervening with a weapon to prevent serious harm, rape, or loss of life then do so. The second is that you will have a hard as hell time getting through court, and even if you win, it'll still hit you HARD in the wallet, so think about if it's worth it or not. Look at it through the eyes of a jury. There really isn't anything contradictory here, I don't see a dilemma. One is designed to cover what you should do as a "good person" to make sure your shoot is always a good one, if it ever happens to you. The other is designed to save your ass and livelihood, if you are considering intervening.
This is why I told the posters in the other thread to do some reading. Perhaps, even get some streetfighting experience. A bar brawl or three would give some much needed experience on the subject. You have to choose your action depending on something unknown -- the intent of the other guy. If you misjudge you've just murdered someone. Let that sink in. Lean to read body language. Observe other fights and what leads up to them. Get some hand to hand skills of your own so your only choices aren't die, flee, or draw down. The simple facts I've already stated. You have an obligation as a social human being to assist other human beings in need. You have an obligation as a thinking human being to evaluate the circumstances in an intelligent manner and act appropriately. A knife isn't the right answer to a gun, and a gun is not always the right answer to a fist. |
I'm in the Fort Worth area. I'll look at chapter 9 again. |
Thanks for the reply.....this is where I disagree. In today's world, you can't assume your only going to get you butt kicked. I have to assume he means deadly harm.....I owe that to my family. Now, I'm not talking about a fight I got myself into over road rage or some other petty thing that I should have been more mature and stayed away from in the first place. Just the fact that I've got a gun and haven't had weeks of weapon retention training and a serious level 2 or higher holster tells me that my gun could become someone elses if they are good enough. I'm talking about an unknown BG that is obviously intent on doing something bad. I just refuse to try to judge their intent before they get too close. |
Fair enough. The scenarios are usually left so wide open that it's hard to tell. I mean the blackbelt in the other thread could just be some homeless nut with a box of kittens outside Penn station in NYC, shadowboxing. No, I've never seen that before..  If some guy is just escalating with you out of thin air, then assume the worst, but rarely is a person ever walking down the street when suddenly Chuck Norris appears, says "I am a blackbelt and I am going to roundhouse kick you into next week", and starts advancing on you. Knowwhatimean? In cases where you have enough time to even think about what to do, you probably have time to get out of harms way, so if you choose to shoot (even if it's a good, legal, shoot) you have a long road of legal battle ahead of you that will not be inexpensive. |
agree totally. as for the legal costs associated with a shoot, I signed up for the CHL protection plan. In a justafied shoot they cover legal costs up to and through a Grand Jury. Hope I never need it. |
|
It is interesting what is missing with these discussions about unarmed attackers. I am a boring person. I am at home, work, or with my wife and kids somewhere in town. I do not go to bars, don't run around at all hours of the night (except to work for late night shift). And I have no temper that gets me in trouble with strangers but am pretty good at avoiding trouble. So, when I imagine myself in a scenario and am presented with an attacker, the situation is far, far out of control. There is no place for "we were arguing over a place in the movie line" or "road rage" because those are simply not a part of my life. And if presented with an attack, I am not presented with an "fight', I am facing an "attack". More yet, if I am with my wife and family, I am not only protecting myself, I am protecting them. In all cases, I am protecting my firearm from falling into an attacker's hands. Perhaps there are places where "simple fights" still happen for others. But in my life there are only assaults that I have been unable to extract myself from and have been forced into defending myself. And if my family's life is at risk, and I cannot easily retreat with a 2, 6 and 8 year old in tow, then I will protect them will all available means. Does that mean that I will shoot first and ask questions later? No. But it does mean that I will not get trapped with my firearm in my holster and me on the ground knocked out. It also means that I will not assume that the one attacker is alone and that there are no others flanking me. Draw and backup. Move to a better position while commanding the assailant stay away. Call for wife to call the police and keep an eye on the guy. In my state the law is simple:
And one reason you can screw up is to:
I.E. If I decide to respond to fists with fists, I risk appearing to have "entered into combat" and lose all legal protections! When we carry we are on a very serious legal plain. And I no longer get the privilege of getting into shouting matches with strangers, or pushing and shoving at the bar, etc. Those days are long over for me. Now I need to avoid a fights at all costs, but when presented with combat I will not hesitate to draw and prepare myself for what I hope will not be necessary. Perhaps a better question is: "Should I waste time trying to mace an attacker before resorting to lethal force if I am being assaulted?" or "When should I deploy mace to avoid having to shoot someone?" Those might be more constructive questions. |
|
There is no Black and White. Different jurisdictions have different rules and or interpretations of the rules as to what and what doesn't constitute lawful use of deadly force.. In the end it will all boil down to you being able to articulate to reasonable persons that you did what they would have reasonably done in the same circumstance as a last resort to save your life or the life of another. Carrying a firearm for self defense is a choice. Choosing the equipment to go with your firearm is a choice. Training to use that firearm is a choice. The outcome of those choices will be largely dependent on whether the choices you made were properly thought out. |
That's it. Not to steal SGB's thunder or anything, but that's it, be prepared, because if you think about it prior, you'll be more accustomed to it, you'll be slightly prepared. Instead of the initial "What is happening?" You'll be thinking, oh this is like, X and I want Y to happen because I was thinking about the other day and we talked about Z situation. It helps you rationalize it, and understand it, so you can perform. Anyway, I'd say your state of mind, and level of preparedness is the most important thing. It all starts in your head, the rest will follow. The more you can understand a situation the better you can grasp it, and make clearer and calmer decisions, instead of panicked or rushed ones. You give yourself options, so instead of "Oh crap, what do I do?" It's, "Okay, I can do this this and this." Anyway, they've already nailed it down. |
|
I recommend reading Ayoob's book on use of deadly force, for one. "In the Gravest Extreme" Here's the thing: I am not a cop. If a cop sees a crime being committed, it is their job to engage the BGs (if they can do so effectively). Even cops do not HAVE to respond to a crime if it would put their life in undue danger, ie: they may need to call for backup or SWAT. Most cops will tell you thier job is to claen up after the crime has been committed. As a citizen, it is my primary job to protect myself and my family from harm. The law in MN is written such that if I do much more than that with my firearm, I am facing possible criminal charges and a definite Civil case. Are there times when I would bend that guideline to protect a child or a pregnant mother? Perhaps. But, I always do my best to avoid conflict. Remember, those that don't carry a weapon have the right to self defense, too. They just choose not to excercise it. |
|
also take into consideration that you reference a "black belt" thread... i recently got into a debate with a coworker (2nd degree black belt) who said that if he came at me with a bat i couldn't shoot him i could only use equal force so i could use a bat to defend against his bat...  once the threshold of deadly force is crossed regardless of the implement it can be matched with that same force... in my case this would be a firearm with some brand of JHPs... regardless of whether the attacker is using a knife, baseball bat, a brick, a sock full of quarters, brass knuckles, blackjack, crowned bottle, box cutter, handgun, or even a 250 pound dude threatening your 100 pound wife can be seen as deadly force... i am not going to get stabbed six times or my jaw broken to "justify" using my firearm... as long as i make an attempt to retreat (i am not acting like a vigilante) and i FEEL that my life or the lives of those around me are in danger... i will draw my weapon... |
There is the basic problem, IMO, as pointed out earlier. That assumption may or may not be valid. More important, that assumption may or may not be reasonable. To do a quick theater of the absurd, if a 6-year old girl, obvioulsy unarmed, approaches you demanding money or she will beat you up, even though there is obvious criminal intent I doubt you would be able to convince a jury that an assumption regarding any great danger to you would be reasonable. Many, if not most, criminal events are not deadly, or life-threatening. And just because you can shoot doesn't mean one should shoot. Lots of variables involved, and thus the wide array of responses to so many scenarios. |
You can't use just the number of events that result in serious injury or death. I would say it is rare for an armed robbery to end in death or serious injury (at least in my jurisdiction and the cases I work). So, using your analysis, you shouldn't turn it into a deadly force scenario. the "what if" game gets real old real fast....... a person that is capable of being a threat is committing an illegal serious act against you (not begging, for the what if crowd), the ability to end the dangerous situation by displaying a firearm could be a good and safe choice. Remember, the first one to call 911 is usually the victim
|
| AFAIK, in Texas... the PRESENTATION/THREAT of deadly force is considered FORCE. If you are justified in using force then you are justified in drawing your weapon (not necessarily using it) Read the laws to be sure though as this is just how i recall it. Then make your training/practice/resolve with that information in mind. |
|
This thread - along with a lot of other threads around here - are a great example of why (IMHO) anybody that CCWs should: 1) Take a formal pistol class from a decent school. 2) Take FOF training from a decent school. A quick guide that will work in 99% of CCW situations is "does someone meet all the following requirements of": 1) ABILITY 2) INTENT 3) OPPORTUNITY Take one of those away and it's a "no-shoot" scenario. Someone walking by you with a baseball bat in their hands has ABILITY and OPPORTUNITY but has not demonstrated INTENT. If someone calls you up from 200 miles away and says "I'm going to kill you" They have INTENT and probably ABILITY but not OPPORTUNITY. - You wouldn't be justified in driving 200 miles to their house and killing them. Mike |
Of course not. You can rarely use any single “just” as your rational. But that certainly should be one of the many factors to consider.
Right. I would not turn an armed robbery into a deadly force scenario, even though in my jurisdiction it might be OK. Again, just because one can shoot doesn’t mean that one should shoot.
And it could also be a terrible choice. That is my point, there are so many variables involved that trying to give a “pat” answer is almost invariably problematic. |