Hi everyone,
I'm the author of the quoted material, something I originally wrote for the self-contained informational website
http://useofforce.us/. Sorry for breezing through a little late; I just found this thread.
The issue about giving the mugger your wallet is unequivocally the most contentious section of that site, and I get more questions and complaints about it than anything else. In fact, most correspondence I get about useofforce.us are either people thanking me, people asking permission to use it for various training courses, people inquiring about that paragraph, and big penis spam. Oh, and people telling me that Packing.org is dead, which used to be the link I gave instead of HandgunLaw.us.
My answer basically speaks to the broader response that ALL of this material needs to be understood in context, which in part means read from BEGINNING TO END. I have, in fact, refused permission several times for it to be reused without the stipulation that it would be distributed in FULL, rather than the cherry-picked pieces that people tend to reprint. Many of the questions raised in this thread, such as regarding individual state laws, would be made clear if you get the overall picture, and understand how this info was meant to be used.
That said, I may not have been clear about this specific matter, given how often confusions arise. So let me clarify it in this way:
Because it's impossible for me to prescribe specific instructions to everyone, without knowing your exact local laws, your situation, and your moral code, what I've done is give
a generalized explanation that comes out as the SAFEST POSSIBLE APPROACH.
What I mean by this is that the principles I describe, if followed, should not violate the law in any state in the US. If you're standing on American soil and you do no more than I indicate, you will be within your legal rights. My PERSONAL moral beliefs place human beings very highly, and according to those you will also be acting morally; however, you need not share those views. I am not telling you how to act, just telling you which door provides legal safety. You're free to go wherever your own compass guides.
I liked Mr. Ayoob's general framework for this, specifically the AOJP idea, not because it's some kind of ubiquitous language you'll find in your state's legal codes, but because it's both simple and clear enough that it leaves little wriggle room. That contentious "Preclusion" element provides much of this. I could give a more lenient framework, and it would make some people happier, but that would not be the "safest" model because there would be situations and places where it would suggest breaking the law.
I hope this makes some sense. In the example of the mugger, the ultimatum "your money or your life" could be read to indicate jeopardy; perhaps it suggests to you that you're dealing with an unhinged madman and is not a true "choice" but rather the indicator of a ticking bomb. Or it could be read as a decision between defending moral staunchness or giving in to might-makes-right. Or maybe that's the audio trigger you've trained with to prompt drawing your weapon and he'll be ventilated by the time he gets to the "-iiiife...." I don't care. Do what you have to do. And certainly, in some states, in some extenuating circumstances, perhaps even in some trials with some juries or with some political climates, you would come out on the side of the angels. But in ALL states, you would be borne out if you gave him your money. So that's what I'm suggesting here.
I'm not able to look into every one of your souls and prescribe answers, especially when most of you seem well-informed and have already walked that path for yourself. But if I'm going to give a roadmap that applies to EVERYONE, it can only be the most conservative sort. That's all I've tried to do. Use it, abuse it, ignore it -- it's just a tool and a resource.
That said, the website is a living document (although not modified very often), and I'm willing to accept any suggestions or corrections if they're put forth.