Glock Talk

Glock Talk (http://glocktalk.com/forums/index.php)
-   Carry Issues (http://glocktalk.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=21)
-   -   What if they approach while you are holding them at gunpoint? (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1364961)

poodleshooter1 08-24-2011 12:37

What if they approach while you are holding them at gunpoint?
 
Let's say you had legal justification to shoot and drew, perhaps because they were approaching with a knife or bat in hand. When you drew your gun they dropped their weapon and stopped advancing. Now you're not able to shoot and are holding them at gunpoint (who would hoster at this point lol).

Let's say the start talking to you and are approaching slowly step by step. If you can, try to create distance and put an object between you and them, sure. But whether you can or can't create distance and place an object between you, do you have legal justification to shoot if they disobey commands to stop advancing, etc. or do you actually have to get to the point where they are two feet from you and able to snatch your gun, and actually trying to snatch your gun?

What are the elements of such a situation?

janice6 08-24-2011 12:39

Say, Stop or I'll shoot. Then shoot.



The threat hasn't stopped.

MLittle 08-24-2011 12:46

My recommendation to you would be to refer to the Laws and Statutes in your state to see what threats by another party would allow a person holding a legit concealed carry permit to use deadly force if you are speaking about a threat outside your home or vehicle.

For me, I would need to feel that I, or my family was in immediate and unavoidable danger and or threat of bodily injury or death before I would discharge my weapon.

Adjuster 08-24-2011 12:50

Shoot

John Rambo 08-24-2011 12:52

Huh? They dropped the knife after I shot them.

poodleshooter1 08-24-2011 12:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by MLittle (Post 17822397)
My recommendation to you would be to refer to the Laws and Statutes in your state to see what threats by another party would allow a person holding a legit concealed carry permit to use deadly force if you are speaking about a threat outside your home or vehicle.

For me, I would need to feel that I, or my family was in immediate and unavoidable danger and or threat of bodily injury or death before I would discharge my weapon.

Ayoob states that if attacked by multiple unarmed people, and you shoot two of them leaving one of them, you have the right to use lethal force because that person has proved an intent and capability to cause grave bodily injury or death. I'm paraphrasing but that's the jist of it.

In my state (WA), you are allowed to use deadly force to stop any felony committed upon your person. Robbery, kidnapping, or felony assault, etc.

So it stands to reason that if someone (one person)was armed with a knife and trying to assault me, that would be a felony, they have shown an intent to commit grave bodily inury or death. They are present and capable. If they drop it and eventually start advancing, it stands to reason they still intend to commit a felony upon me and are not walking up to shake my hand.

txinvestigator 08-24-2011 13:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by janice6 (Post 17822369)
Say, Stop or I'll shoot. Then shoot.



The threat hasn't stopped.

And perhaps go to prison, depending on the circumstances.

freedom790 08-24-2011 13:01

Around these parts the language is when "a person reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of serious bodily harm or death." Once you feel that he has the time, proximity and capability and you fear seriously bodily harm or death, around here at least, you are within your legal right to shoot. But like has been said, I would check for precedence within your area.

txinvestigator 08-24-2011 13:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by poodleshooter1 (Post 17822433)
Ayoob states that if attacked by multiple unarmed people, and you shoot two of them leaving one of them, you have the right to use lethal force because that person has proved an intent and capability to cause grave bodily injury or death. I'm paraphrasing but that's the jist of it.

In my state (WA), you are allowed to use deadly force to stop any felony committed upon your person. Robbery, kidnapping, or felony assault, etc.

So it stands to reason that if someone (one person)was armed with a knife and trying to assault me, that would be a felony, they have shown an intent to commit grave bodily inury or death. They are present and capable. If they drop it and eventually start advancing, it stands to reason they still intend to commit a felony upon me and are not walking up to shake my hand.

You are seriously simplifying Ayoobs statements, and I believe slighty mi-stating them.

Depending on the laws of your state, your last paragraph might or might not give justification.

janice6 08-24-2011 13:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by txinvestigator (Post 17822447)
And perhaps go to prison, depending on the circumstances.

Some times it works that way.

GlockinNJ 08-24-2011 13:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by janice6 (Post 17822478)
Some times it works that way.

Better to be judged by 12....

Sam Spade 08-24-2011 13:24

Sounds like you've got a decision to make.

Several, actually, and the first one is whether or not you're going to train and study or just treat the pistol as magic.

GlocksterPaulie 08-24-2011 13:33

Everyone who carries a firearm for SD should already have the answer to this question. If this happens and you don't have a game plan you are going to be in a world of pain and possibly death.

Their is a lot more to this than carrying a firearm. Do your homework now so if this situation happens on your worst day you will be prepared.

Paulie

Scamp 08-24-2011 13:34

Let 'em get close and kick 'em in the nads....:supergrin:

rhikdavis 08-24-2011 13:40

Knee-capp'em!

cloudbuster 08-24-2011 14:35

This tactical expert recommends spitting on them, slapping and kicking at them, and possibly , if they stab you, bleeding on them while shouting "I have STDs!" This should buy you plenty of time to discern their intent. :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pU2IOTEZlU

poodleshooter1 08-24-2011 14:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by txinvestigator (Post 17822457)
You are seriously simplifying Ayoobs statements, and I believe slighty mi-stating them.

Depending on the laws of your state, your last paragraph might or might not give justification.

No, I'm not. He clearly stated in his book such a circumstance where multiple unarmed people attack, you shoot two of them, one is left standing. What do you do? His answer was pretty clear. Don't make me get the book out and type out what it says....

poodleshooter1 08-24-2011 14:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam Spade (Post 17822541)
Sounds like you've got a decision to make.

Several, actually, and the first one is whether or not you're going to train and study or just treat the pistol as magic.

:upeyes:

Sam Spade 08-24-2011 15:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by poodleshooter1 (Post 17822433)
Ayoob states that if attacked by multiple unarmed people, and you shoot two of them leaving one of them, you have the right to use lethal force because that person has proved an intent and capability to cause grave bodily injury or death. I'm paraphrasing but that's the jist of it.

In my state (WA), you are allowed to use deadly force to stop any felony committed upon your person. Robbery, kidnapping, or felony assault, etc.

So it stands to reason that if someone (one person)was armed with a knife and trying to assault me, that would be a felony, they have shown an intent to commit grave bodily inury or death. They are present and capable. If they drop it and eventually start advancing, it stands to reason they still intend to commit a felony upon me and are not walking up to shake my hand.

I sat through LFI-I, dutifully transcribed my notes, and that's not what he said to us. Nor would he have been correct if he said what you wrote. *IF* the disparity of force that led you to shoot 2 of 3 unarmed attackers was based just on their numbers, then you've removed the "ability" leg of the AOJ stool, pretty much by definiton, when you removed the surplus numbers. I'll buy that the survivor has the opportunity to hurt you, even then intent. Please show (this generally being an affirmative defense) that the last guy could cause you serious injury or death. Show that as things existed when you pulled the trigger on the last guy that you were acting in immediate defense of life.

Ditto the knife example in the last paragraph. Please show that an unarmed guy walking towards you has the capacity---not the intent or the opportunity---to force you to act in immediate defense of life. The simple "intent to commit a felony" generally isn't enough. And you should also be able to distinguish, in acts and in discussion, the difference between when you're allowed to shoot and when you need to shoot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by poodleshooter1 (Post 17822864)
:upeyes:

Really?

CookeMonster 08-24-2011 16:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam Spade (Post 17822938)
Ditto the knife example in the last paragraph. Please show that an unarmed guy walking toward you has the capacity---not the intent or the opportunity---to force you to act in immediate defense of life. The simple "intent to commit a felony" generally isn't enough. And you should also be able to distinguish, in acts and in discussion, the difference between when you're allowed to shoot and when you need to shoot.

I am not a lawyer, nor did I sleep in a Holiday Inn Express recently, but I would have to argue that the man pulled the knife on me to commit a violent felony. If he is still advancing on me now that I have introduced a stronger weapon, I have to assume he intends to follow through with his 1st threat by producing a hidden weapon, or taking control of mine. At this point, you have drawn and chambered, safety off if applicable and the range has shrunk (from the 20 feet or whatever it may be here or there) in your defensible buffer zone to less than 10 feet. Yes, try to disengage or keep obstacles between you and him, but he gets inside of 10 feet and it would go bang. I have not discussed this scenario with a lawyer, as I don't have one at my beckon call, nor do I intend to pay one to discuss every possible scenario. I only have to fear for my safety right now, and he's already shown to be a motivated, violent offender by pulling the knife in the first place and IMO is proving he is currently a danger by continuing to advance on a man wielding a gun.

RussP 08-24-2011 16:09

Folks, if you don't have a positive contribution to make, how about just not posting.

Thanks

barstoolguru 08-24-2011 16:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhikdavis (Post 17822617)
Knee-capp'em!


I asked about shooting below the waist and it would still be intent to kill so you might as well shoot them in the chest and not take the chance of missing

Even if the weapon is dropped the perp is still moving towards you they are still a threat because you can't tell if they have another weapon

rohanreginald 08-24-2011 16:46

Simple answer...

If I am in fear of my life I draw in preparation to shoot. If the bad guy drops his weapon then I don't shoot immediately. If the threat persists however, I am going to shoot.

While that is a simple answer there are many variables to throw in there and to contemplate. Can I put a barrier between me and bad guy. If so I do that. If the bad guy advances and I have time to give commands, I do that. If he obeys my commands then I don't shoot.

What if I pull my gun, he drops his knife, runs for cover so he can draw a pistol and tries to shoot me first. There are so many things to think of that it is impossible to answer every variable over the internet. The bottom line is if the threat still exists to my life, I am going to end that threat one way or another. Shooting someone is always the last resort!

Sr. Bang Bang 08-24-2011 17:22

When I took my CCW class in the state of Ohio, there was a lawyer who was good friends with the gun range that I go to. He came in to talk about the "legal" side of carrying concealed, and using lethal force to protect your life. The two points that I keep popping in my head as I read this response:

1. If you are prepared to to pull your gun, you pull the trigger. You do not pull the gun as a warning,or a threat because you have to explain why you used lethal force, when apparently a threat was all that was needed.

2. (which follows the same thought process of #1,) Never fire warning shots, or shoot below the belt (purposely not killing, but wounding) because, again, you are using lethal force in a way that wasn't lethal and you have to prove that lethal force was needed to legally draw your weapon, and then explain why you didn't use it lethally.

lovetofly08 08-24-2011 17:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by rohanreginald (Post 17823360)
Simple answer...

If I am in fear of my life I draw in preparation to shoot. If the bad guy drops his weapon then I don't shoot immediately. If the threat persists however, I am going to shoot.

While that is a simple answer there are many variables to throw in there and to contemplate. Can I put a barrier between me and bad guy. If so I do that. If the bad guy advances and I have time to give commands, I do that. If he obeys my commands then I don't shoot.

What if I pull my gun, he drops his knife, runs for cover so he can draw a pistol and tries to shoot me first. There are so many things to think of that it is impossible to answer every variable over the internet. The bottom line is if the threat still exists to my life, I am going to end that threat one way or another. Shooting someone is always the last resort!

:goodpost: :agree:


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:52.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2013, Glock Talk, All Rights Reserved.