What would you do? Draw or Not question

Status
Not open for further replies.
Only you know for sure how threatening the guy really was.
And only you can decided the exact threshold that must be crossed before you decide to draw.

I probably would have placed my hand on my holstered pistol and loudly declared for all to hear "I'm not going to fight you and I have a gun. Back off NOW."
If he had continued to advance I would have eventually drawn my pistol when I felt that I could not let him get closer without compromising my own safety (a judgment call with no real correct answer).

I'm too old to get my brains bashed in by some young tough guy half my age.
And I work in an ER of a large hospital where I routinely see guys with life threatening injures resulting from being beaten and stomped.
I've seen guys lose eyeballs, kidneys, testicles, teeth, and suffer brain damage and spinal damage, and suffer liver damage, all from assaults without any weapons involved but fists and feet.
Physical assault is nothing to take lightly.

The best fight is one that is prevented from happening in the first place.
And if I can prevent an assault on myself by telling the aggressor that I have a pistol, then that's much better than waiting till I'm on the ground with a crushed orbit or a ruptured testicle, trying to draw my pistol, most likely too late.

Yes, some folks will chime in....
"You can't draw on someone for verbal threats"...
"You can't draw until you are being physically assaulted"...
"You will go to jail for brandishing"...
Etc...

But IMO, you CAN'T let yourself get beaten to death in a parking with a pistol in your holster!
If you simply will not draw until after you have already been assaulted, then you're better off carrying pepper-spray and leaving your pistol at home.
 
easyg said:
Only you know for sure how threatening the guy really was.
And only you can decided the exact threshold that must be crossed before you decide to draw.

I probably would have placed my hand on my holstered pistol and loudly declared for all to hear "I'm not going to fight you and I have a gun. Back off NOW."
If he had continued to advance I would have eventually drawn my pistol when I felt that I could not let him get closer without compromising my own safety (a judgment call with no real correct answer).

I'm too old to get my brains bashed in by some young tough guy half my age.
And I work in an ER of a large hospital where I routinely see guys with life threatening injures resulting from being beaten and stomped.
I've seen guys lose eyeballs, kidneys, testicles, teeth, and suffer brain damage and spinal damage, and suffer liver damage, all from assaults without any weapons involved but fists and feet.
Physical assault is nothing to take lightly.

The best fight is one that is prevented from happening in the first place.
And if I can prevent an assault on myself by telling the aggressor that I have a pistol, then that's much better than waiting till I'm on the ground with a crushed orbit or a ruptured testicle, trying to draw my pistol, most likely too late.

Yes, some folks will chime in....
"You can't draw on someone for verbal threats"...
"You can't draw until you are being physically assaulted"...
"You will go to jail for brandishing"...
Etc...

But IMO, you CAN'T let yourself get beaten to death in a parking with a pistol in your holster!
If you simply will not draw until after you have already been assaulted, then you're better off carrying pepper-spray and leaving your pistol at home.
Click to expand...

I'm one who would normally chime in saying some of that (it's my instructor side talking), BUT...you make the correct points to go with it.

This is where things such as disparity of force come into play. If you're older, you don't have the ability to go toe-to-toe with a younger opponent and expect to come out uninjured. Here in MN, for example, the standard is a reasonable fear of Great Bodily Harm (and that is a specific legal term) or Death.

Against a single opponent, assuming it's not Mike Tyson or a UFC champion, I would have a hard time convincing a jury that I faced either of those standards from a fistfight. I'm in my 30's, formally trained in martial arts, and spent years working public safety and corrections. 6", 260. I can put up a mess of a fight if I have to.

Consider my mother (raving anti-gunner she is, but the example is still valid). The same person threatening her with nothing more than his hands would definitely put her in fear for her life. She's in her 60's, has arthritis and a fused back, bad knees, and brittle bones among other health concerns. She could easily die from a simple punch and fall.

You're right, only each individual can decide where that line is for himself or herself. It has to be based on personal triggers, legal restrictions, and the specifics of the situation.

-Mark
 
It has to be based on personal triggers, legal restrictions, and the specifics of the situation.

And we have to keep in mind, in many states, that much depends on our own ability to clearly articulate the reasons why we felt it necessary to do what we did under the circumstances. Our actions almost certainly will be questioned later, and our answers must be readily at hand, clear and concise.

lpl
 
And we have to keep in mind, in many states, that much depends on our own ability to clearly articulate the reasons why we felt it necessary to do what we did under the circumstances. Our actions almost certainly will be questioned later, and our answers must be readily at hand, clear and concise.
Click to expand...

Yes, our testimony will prove important, but it may not be sufficient in the absence of other supporting evidence or in the presence of contradictory evidence such as the testimony of others.

That said, getting seriously hurt is certainly not an acceptable option.

So--what to do?

Avoid, deescalate, evade, and escape--and be able to draw very quickly indeed and use the weapon effectively at close quarters if need be.

Personally, I like the idea of a Pepperblaster, backed up by a firearm.

Personally also, while the "stand your ground" provision that exists in some jurisdictions could prove very helpful indeed from a legal perspective, standing one's ground may not be the wisest thing to do in all cases.

As easyg points out, "the best fight is one that is prevented from happening in the first place."
 
I don't think the laws anywhere would look highly on a verbal warning that you're going to shoot unless the BG was doing something justifying it. You can probably think of some scenario where you could warn someone but by the time the situation escalated to justification of deadly force I would think you don't have time for verbal warnings.
Click to expand...

You don't necessarily need to issue a verbal warning of being armed to get the point across. My sister had a road rage encounter not too long ago. It started on the highway. I won't go into detail about the particulars of the vehicular confrontation, but the guy followed her off the highway and into town. When she stopped to run into the store, he pulled up behind her, got out, and began advancing while uttering hostile profanities. She already had her door open, so she turned sideways, with her PF-9 in her hand, resting in her lap (out of sight). As he approached, she told him (this is not verbatim) that if he continued, he'd have a real problem. According to her, she uttered this warning three times and suspects that he may have got close enough and caught a glimpse of the pistol, and decided the better of it. He quickly retreated to his car and drove off.

Whether or not he actually saw the weapon, only he knows. Maybe he figured out that his intimidation tactics weren't working and changed course. We'll never know. Point is, she was able to make it clear that he would regret further confrontation without ever actually saying she had a gun.
 
In terms of self defense, which is really the goal here, the car was the far superior tool. Any car can outrun a landscaping truck, any car can provide adequate protection against a utility knife attack, any car can get you distance while your passenger calls 911, any car can get you to a police station.

Standing there, facing off against an angry guy with a utility knife and some friends, trying to talk down the situation, sounded to me like an effort to win. To dominate the situation, verbally or otherwise. To make the aggressor realize that he picked on the wrong guy, to make him flee. To be a hero, a winner.

IMO, that's not the path to "winning" the conflict. The only win is a situation where no one gets hurt, no one breaks the law, no property is damaged, and everyone gets home in time for dinner. Squaring off against the angry guy left the ball in his court - if landscaper wanted to escalate, he could have. He could have done whatever he wanted to and the OP would have been left to play the landscaper's game. Even if the OP beat the guy down, shot him, scared off or killed all his buddies, that's a major loss for everyone. Lives ruined because the OP simply didn't get back in his car and drive away.

If the OP had just beat feet back to the car and got it running and ready to go, that takes all the power away from the aggressor. Landscaper is out of the truck, now he's on two feet while the OP is on 4 wheels. Cya sucker.
 
if you felt that your life/personal well being was being threatened then you should draw your weapon. as others have posted being physically assaulted can have devestating results, i worked in a prison for several years and saw countless fights were neither were armed and many times one of the participants had to be taken to the hospital for their wounds (broken ribs, hands, jaws and internal bleeding). i would only draw if retreat was not an option, i live in a state where there is no duty to retreat but i would rather have in my defense that i did all that i could to avoid having to use deadly force.
 
@ oldfoof
Now there is three............
I had one of those guys--you know --the ones that are out of gas & need money
he would not let me pass---I opened my jacket--he could see my weapon--he turned around--swearing--& left.
Under the michigan Castle Doctrine Law---If I feel my life is in danger-I may use deadly force on the street......................
 
In NC I am pretty sure that pulling on him would be jail for you. You are only authorized to pull when already authorized to use deadly force, and one man issuing verbal threats does not allow you to use deadly force. I'm pretty sure that the only time you can is if there are 3 to one or more odds, or they have an advantage (weapon, youth and strength if you are old or disabled) that leads someone of sound judgement to believe that they are in danger of life, limb, or severe bodily harm. If he started getting the best of you in a fight I'm not sure when/if you could pull. It's really all what you think that a jury will acquit you of.

Still, when in doubt better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. Sounds like you did the right thing in this case though.
 
I think it's pretty ridiculous that you can't use a firearm to defend yourself simply because the other person(s) isn't armed. I've seen serious, serious injuries caused with nothing but fists and feet, and I've seen little guys who know how to fight knock out guys who had 30-50 lbs on them. If someone attacks you, I believe you should be absolved of all responsibility for what happens to them, as they're the ones who initiated force. I just can't see how them being armed or not is relevant at all.

Plus, if someone attacks you and you have a gun on you, you have to stop them from getting your gun somehow. This is the kind of situation where I'll do what's necessary to defend myself and worry about the legalities later... anything's better than being beaten/stomped to death.
 
Last edited:
Alex45ACP said:
I think it's pretty ridiculous that you can't use a firearm to defend yourself simply because the other person(s) isn't armed. I've seen serious, serious injuries caused with nothing but fists and feet, and I've seen little guys who know how to fight knock out guys who had 30-50 lbs on them. If someone attacks you, I believe you should be absolved of all responsibility for what happens to them, as they're the ones who initiated force. I just can't see how them being armed or not is relevant at all.

Plus, if someone attacks you and you have a gun on you, you have to stop them from getting your gun somehow. This is the kind of situation where I'll do what's necessary to defend myself and worry about the legalities later... anything's better than being beaten/stomped to death.
Click to expand...

You need to know your laws. Criteria varies state to state, and within that, person to person.

I'm not willing to turn a simple fistfight into a lethal force encounter if lesser force will serve. In fact, I legally can't in this state.

-Mark
 
I am a medic and I have seen plenty of people who have been severely beaten by nothing but boot heels and fists. Thats where this is iffy for me.....life can be taken without a gun.

Joe
 
The key word in pretty much EVERY state is REASONABLE.

If a twelve year-old comes at you with a butter knife, it's going to be difficult to convince a DA and a jury that it was necessary to shoot him.

If there is a guy CLOSE to your size, acting erratically, coming in fast, ignoring your warnings, fists balled, saying he's going to f------ kill you, and you have nowhere to go, then it's much more difficult for the DA to convince a jury that you had no reason to shoot him.

Like we have said, depends on the situation. Just make sure you do everything you can to not put the DA in a position where it's difficult to decide.
 
What's all this nonsense about scrapping with people using a "reasonable amount of force" while you're carrying a gun?

If you get tossed around and the gun comes loose or the other guy finds it holstered, now you're at a much greater risk of being shot by your own gun. I can't even imagine how scary it would be to have someone trying to force the muzzle of your own gun toward your person and trying to get a shot off.

Pepper spray is about the only thing you can do. By no means should you start fighting toe to toe while carrying. Too much risk involved. Standing there talking isn't a smart thing either. Back up with your hand on the grip, don't say anything about having a gun if you're REALLY that afraid of that statement getting you in trouble. I'll bet it won't. It's one person's word against another, and they have NO IDEA who you are and won't be able to tell the cops who said it. But I'm sure most would-be assailants would recognize what you've reached back there for and run like a scalded dog.

I think we get too wrapped up in worst-case scenario lawsuits about what most of the time would be considered frivolous. Somebody meaning to do you harm is probably not the most upstanding citizen and isn't going to be too swift to call the police on you for telling him "Back off, I have a gun". Not to mention he doesn't know your name. Knowing who to tell on is a big part of it anyway. Unless of course you consider yourself obligated to greet each one with "Hello, my name is Ben Dover, I live at 4343 Any Street, I also have a gun. Do you wish to continue?"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
police tactic question
Replies
14
Views
492
Robert
Robert
J
  • Locked
What would you have done?
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
Jenrick
J
G
  • Locked
What would you do in this situation: Police officer acts weird?
2
Replies
45
Views
2K
Fred Fuller
F
M
  • Locked
The Garage- what would you do?
2 3
Replies
71
Views
3K
sm
S
2
  • Locked
OK, what would you have done?
Replies
24
Views
1K
dpesec
D
Back
Top