c919
Member
Ok, to just to clarify from the get go, I know this will be vague. However, I don't think it really matters in this case. After all, I'm just asking for a little armchair speculation on a subject that has me thinking. I'm normally not too big on imaginary scenario threads, but this is something that I've wondered about for some time now. Had a few things not gone my way, I would have recently been in a situation of this sort. It has bothered me ever since, and I think it's definitely worth discussing.
So here's the scenario:
You are by yourself (but in public) facing a certain attack from an unknown assailant. Let's say it's not a robbery or anything like that, just a really enraged individual who has for whatever reason decided to harm you. Although in the real world one can never tell if an attacker is truly unarmed, but let's assume (for the sake of this topic) that they are unarmed. Also, let's say that this individual is around the same size as you (to eliminate any argument of disparity of force). From an outsider looking in, this looks to be a run-of-the-mill street fight in the works.
ETA: You have no less-than lethal weapons, MA training is ok, but either hands or gun. You have already done everything possible to avoid, and nothing has worked. You have yelled, ran, called 911 and he's still on you.
There are times when deescalation is not an option, so I hope to avoid any comments like "walk away" or "don't be there in the first place."
At this point I'd like to add a disclaimer. In no way do I think that it is justified to shoot someone just to avoid a scuffle or humiliation.
It is well known that one can be permanently disabled as a result of a fist fight. It doesn't take much to put you in a wheelchair and diapers for the rest of your days, and you never know just how crazy another man may be. There is no way to know on the front end if you will walk away unharmed, with a black eye, a broken arm, on a stretcher, or not walk away at all. Heck, they could intend to simply sock you once or twice, but instead you fall on a curb and end up in a coma.
We all know (I hope) that a firearm is not to be used unless you are facing grave bodily harm or death. However, there are times when it would be impossible to know that you were facing these outcomes until it is already too late.
So my question is: How would you assess this type of situation?
Knowing that grave bodily harm or death can easily come as the result of a fist fight, and if you do scuffle you risk the attacker procuring your weapon, would you...
A. Not be willing to take that gamble, and stop the threat via firearm?
B. Risk it and try to stop the attacker via hand-to-hand combat?
And once again, hand-to-hand or gun are the options. I do carry pepper spray, knife, etc, but (for conversation's sake) I'd like to keep this one option A or B for now.
I forgot to add the poll, and rolling with Lee's suggestion, we will keep this one as conversation only
So here's the scenario:
You are by yourself (but in public) facing a certain attack from an unknown assailant. Let's say it's not a robbery or anything like that, just a really enraged individual who has for whatever reason decided to harm you. Although in the real world one can never tell if an attacker is truly unarmed, but let's assume (for the sake of this topic) that they are unarmed. Also, let's say that this individual is around the same size as you (to eliminate any argument of disparity of force). From an outsider looking in, this looks to be a run-of-the-mill street fight in the works.
ETA: You have no less-than lethal weapons, MA training is ok, but either hands or gun. You have already done everything possible to avoid, and nothing has worked. You have yelled, ran, called 911 and he's still on you.
There are times when deescalation is not an option, so I hope to avoid any comments like "walk away" or "don't be there in the first place."
At this point I'd like to add a disclaimer. In no way do I think that it is justified to shoot someone just to avoid a scuffle or humiliation.
It is well known that one can be permanently disabled as a result of a fist fight. It doesn't take much to put you in a wheelchair and diapers for the rest of your days, and you never know just how crazy another man may be. There is no way to know on the front end if you will walk away unharmed, with a black eye, a broken arm, on a stretcher, or not walk away at all. Heck, they could intend to simply sock you once or twice, but instead you fall on a curb and end up in a coma.
We all know (I hope) that a firearm is not to be used unless you are facing grave bodily harm or death. However, there are times when it would be impossible to know that you were facing these outcomes until it is already too late.
So my question is: How would you assess this type of situation?
Knowing that grave bodily harm or death can easily come as the result of a fist fight, and if you do scuffle you risk the attacker procuring your weapon, would you...
A. Not be willing to take that gamble, and stop the threat via firearm?
B. Risk it and try to stop the attacker via hand-to-hand combat?
And once again, hand-to-hand or gun are the options. I do carry pepper spray, knife, etc, but (for conversation's sake) I'd like to keep this one option A or B for now.
I forgot to add the poll, and rolling with Lee's suggestion, we will keep this one as conversation only
Last edited:
