Handgun tactics. Why I am intentionally passive in classes.
- Thread starter TestPilot
- Start date
- Status
redacted said:
That may be your perspective but I would advise you consider not posting it on an open forum that's indexed by Google, edit that for posterity, and further perhaps get some training that poses alternative options, because the scenarios you described do not sound like good shoots to me.
You are imputing intent that someone who appears to be "interfering" with your use of lethal force is necessarily "assisting" the would-be target. That isn't really logically the case and unless you left out a lot of nuance in the hypothetical I believe you would have a tough time making that argument for real.
I do not have to be a mind reader.
Regardless of their intent, if I have a reasonable to belief that their action is putting my life in danger or putting me in serious injury, it is a serious threat.
According to your argument, you can never shoot anyone for self-defence, since you can't even know the true intent of a person poiting a shotgun at you.
How do you know if it's just a toy gun?
How do you know if it is loaded?
How do you know if the person is actually trying to shoot someone behind you for reason that is legal?
If your argument is that it is illegal to shoot unless all that is determined, then it would be a criminal's paradise.
California example:
Penal Code 197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in
any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person;
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a
wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such
person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to
commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent
danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the
person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant
or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have
endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was
committed;
192. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without
malice. It is of three kinds:
(a) Voluntary--upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.
(b) Involuntary--in the commission of an unlawful act, not
amounting to felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might
produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and
circumspection. This subdivision shall not apply to acts committed in
the driving of a vehicle.
Whether if the person I shoot is ARMED OR NOT is IRRELEVANT.
According to the law I can resist a felonious act that can cause serious injury or death.
Now, let's go back to the example of a gangster's mother who intentionally clinged to my arm because I was trying to shoot her gangster son who was charging towards me with a machette.
Even if a gangster mother holding my arm, in and of it self, does not pose a serious threat, the situation where her son is charging towards me with a machette, makes it a situation where she should know that her action can get me killed or seriously injured. So, her simple act of grabbing me from shooting her son does make it a felony in a number of ways.
- Even if her only intent was to protect her son, when she willfully joined him in a felonious physical attack. Under that circumstances, she also become a primary in an assault with a deadly weapon to murder.
- A reasonable man will belive her action, if not resisted, can have a very high likelyhoot of getting me killed or seriously injured.
Pinning a person when that act can get the person killed, with malice, would be murder.
Pinning a person when that act can get the person killed, without malice or even intent to get the person killed, would me an attempt at a manslauter if the person doing the pinning should know that the act can get the person killed. In this instance the gangsta mother should know that, whether if she actually knows this does not matter.
There is no question that I am resisting an attempt at a murder, felony, or doing serious injury. There is no question that I have reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury. Only difference is who the primary physical harm is coming from and who else is acting that facilitates it.
When group of biker gangs surrounds you and attacks you, with some of them armed with a deadly weapon, all of them are committing a felony, even the ones who are not armed.
What can you find in the dictionary about mieleading, lying about, or misrepresenting in regards to another person's position? Such as what you are doing.
Last edited:
A person is doing an act on you.
The person doing the act willfully.
The person knows or should now that you can be killed or seriously injured as a result of the act, even if that is not the person's intent. And, even if the physical harm that can kill or seriously injure you is not directly coming from the person, but by another person.
In a situation where all the above is true, would you consider the person a deadly threat or not?
Regardless of whether if that person's intent was to assist or not, it is a kind of situation where the person should know that his or her interfering can get me killed, and he or she is willfully interfering.
Last edited:
Walt Sherrill
Member
If you have any attorney friends, you might talk with them about Penal Code 197 and see if they agree with your take on the topic. Especially if they've ever been involved with a case requiring the use of lethal force. (Lethal force doesn't mean you have to kill someone.) I added the underlining in section 3, below, for reasons explained in comment following that example. (What did you find in the federal code?)
The language you've cited seems to be addressing your ability to use a weapon when protecting yourself against the actions of a 1) person trying to do YOU great bodily harm, or 2) while you're defending yourself or someone close to you from such a person. Using your weapon against someone who isn't directly trying to harm you or someone close to you doesn't clearly seem to meet the criteria.
We've had a similar law on the books here in NC for many years and it's been made a bit less stringent, in the last year or two -- but it still boils down to LETHAL FORCE must be a last resort, and blasting someone who's in your way isn't generally going to be seen as a last resort. (In the past were were required to try to disengage; that is no longer required -- but using lethal force must still be a last resort -- and when used against people who aren't themselves using lethal force, it become very problematic.
The part of the code shown above that's easy to overlook is the last part of section 3, underlined above, which (unlike NC) basically says you MUST make a good faith effort to decline any further struggle before using lethal force. Blasting a bystander whom you feel may be is helping someone else hurt you isn't really "declining the struggle. Blasting someone who isn't also able to use lethal force may present a problem.
California may do things a bit differently, but I'll be surprised if it's greatly different than it is here in NC.
NC law uses both statutes and well-established standard based on Common Law. In this sort of discussions, I've see similar practices and interpretation discussed by residents of other states.
Here in NC, you must meet all four conditions to have what's called a "perfect" defense. With a perfect defense charges are either not brought or are quickly dropped. If only SOME of the elements are present, then you've got what's called an "imperfect" defense, which might, if you are charged, lead to a lessening of charges. A person interfering with your efforts to shoot the other guy/protect yourself before the other guy shoots you -- the person you've said you'd "blast" -- if shot or killed -- might not satisfy parts 2 or 4. I'll be surprised if California doesn't have Common Law interpretations similar to NC; other states do. In fact, an observer watching the confrontation, on the other hand, might say that the person interfering with your actions was trying to lawfully defend a family member (as in 197.3, above): Mama trying to defend her son, a distraught teenage daughter trying to stop the conflict, or just a loopy bystander who gets in the way, or who -- because he or she is loopy -- thinks YOU are the bad guy.
But, avoiding criminal charges isn't the only thing you have to worry about. Even a PERFECT DEFENSE may not keep you from facing a major CIVIL SUIT. An imperfect defense is almost certainly going take you down that ugly, time-consuming and costly path. (That's how Nicole's Simpson and Ron Goldman's family got O.J., don't forget -- with a civil suit that found him guilty of a wrongful death.)
The whole point is that using LETHAL FORCE is something you should avoid if you can. There are clearly times and places where it can and should be used. But, using it in situations where it MIGHT not be necessary can lead to very ugly consequences. In the examples you offered you felt the use of Lethal Force was necessary. To me (and I suspect, to some others) that was less clear.
Let's hope that if it ever come to that, you're right. I think you'd be in trouble in this part of the country.
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a felony, or to do some realt bodily injury upon any person;
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was committed...
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was committed...
The language you've cited seems to be addressing your ability to use a weapon when protecting yourself against the actions of a 1) person trying to do YOU great bodily harm, or 2) while you're defending yourself or someone close to you from such a person. Using your weapon against someone who isn't directly trying to harm you or someone close to you doesn't clearly seem to meet the criteria.
We've had a similar law on the books here in NC for many years and it's been made a bit less stringent, in the last year or two -- but it still boils down to LETHAL FORCE must be a last resort, and blasting someone who's in your way isn't generally going to be seen as a last resort. (In the past were were required to try to disengage; that is no longer required -- but using lethal force must still be a last resort -- and when used against people who aren't themselves using lethal force, it become very problematic.
The part of the code shown above that's easy to overlook is the last part of section 3, underlined above, which (unlike NC) basically says you MUST make a good faith effort to decline any further struggle before using lethal force. Blasting a bystander whom you feel may be is helping someone else hurt you isn't really "declining the struggle. Blasting someone who isn't also able to use lethal force may present a problem.
California may do things a bit differently, but I'll be surprised if it's greatly different than it is here in NC.
NC law uses both statutes and well-established standard based on Common Law. In this sort of discussions, I've see similar practices and interpretation discussed by residents of other states.
- You actually believe deadly force is necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault, and
- The facts and circumstances prompting that belief would cause a person of ordinary firmness to believe deadly force was necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault, and
- You were not an instigator or aggressor who voluntarily provoked, entered, or continued the conflict leading to deadly force, and
- The force used was not excessive, i.e., the force used was not greater than reasonably needed to overcome the threat posed by a hostile aggressor.
Here in NC, you must meet all four conditions to have what's called a "perfect" defense. With a perfect defense charges are either not brought or are quickly dropped. If only SOME of the elements are present, then you've got what's called an "imperfect" defense, which might, if you are charged, lead to a lessening of charges. A person interfering with your efforts to shoot the other guy/protect yourself before the other guy shoots you -- the person you've said you'd "blast" -- if shot or killed -- might not satisfy parts 2 or 4. I'll be surprised if California doesn't have Common Law interpretations similar to NC; other states do. In fact, an observer watching the confrontation, on the other hand, might say that the person interfering with your actions was trying to lawfully defend a family member (as in 197.3, above): Mama trying to defend her son, a distraught teenage daughter trying to stop the conflict, or just a loopy bystander who gets in the way, or who -- because he or she is loopy -- thinks YOU are the bad guy.
But, avoiding criminal charges isn't the only thing you have to worry about. Even a PERFECT DEFENSE may not keep you from facing a major CIVIL SUIT. An imperfect defense is almost certainly going take you down that ugly, time-consuming and costly path. (That's how Nicole's Simpson and Ron Goldman's family got O.J., don't forget -- with a civil suit that found him guilty of a wrongful death.)
The whole point is that using LETHAL FORCE is something you should avoid if you can. There are clearly times and places where it can and should be used. But, using it in situations where it MIGHT not be necessary can lead to very ugly consequences. In the examples you offered you felt the use of Lethal Force was necessary. To me (and I suspect, to some others) that was less clear.
Let's hope that if it ever come to that, you're right. I think you'd be in trouble in this part of the country.
Actually, what counts is (1) whether under the applicable law the judge will instruct your jury that they could find that a reasonable person in like circumstances would consider that person a lethal threat; and (2) your jury reaches that conclusion. If the DA, grand jury and/or your trial jury disagree with your assessment, you'll be going to jail.TestPilot said:
Remember, you don't have the final say on whether your act of violence was justified. That will be up to others.
And that's going to be a tough sell to the DA/grand jury/trial jury. Good luck.TestPilot said:
I'm glad you spoke up here because I was about to bring up the reasonable person standard, but you definitely have more gravitas in this area.
In short I think this thread may be good grounds for the OP to consider whether his rationale is likely to be found reasonable, because if anything we (a firearms and self defense oriented forum) are more likely to agree. If he can't sell it here this doesn't bode well for the populace at large, his "peers" on a jury.
It actually depends on the jurisdiction. And in some jurisdictions, and depending on what you've put into evidence, the judge might decline to give a self defense instruction.TestPilot said:
The bottom line is you're making some extravagant and aggressive claims and could well be taking matters well beyond the limits of legally justified use of force.
If you think you'll be solidly in the clear using lethal force against the innocent third party who some might see as just trying to bread up a fight, or the hysterical thirteen year old girl, how about citing some case law to support your contentions? And understand that statute law is only half the answer. We need to see how courts have applied statutory and case law in the sorts of situations you're describing.
Christ, where in the hell did I ever say I would shoot an innocent?
I am refering to situations where they are purposely assaulting me with forces that, in conjunction with another attacker using dealy force, makes his or her unarmed attack heighen my probability of death or serious injury.
"Distraught" or being a 13 year old girl does not mean innocence.
I am not talking about the girl being a hindrance for the sole reason that she is distraught.
How many times do I have to say this? I am not talking about an innocent bystander who happened to be an interference.
How do you know that they aren't "innocent"? It might be one thing if they maliciously intend to impede you in your attempt to defend yourself. It could be another if they are merely ordinary bystanders in an understandable panic.TestPilot said:
Yes, it would be difficult to tell the difference. But if you shoot them, you will surly need to be able to articulate why a reasonable person would have concluded the former rather than the latter. Here's where case law becomes especially important. Judicial decisions in similar cases, if they exist, will give us some insight into how the courts will deal with that conundrum.
These terms you use like innocent, and so on, don't really carry legal weight to my knowledge. That is not for you to decide.
Someone can hinder your defense by clutching your weapon bearing hand, or standing between you and your target screaming... This does not, according to my thinking or training background, merit your stated response.
Again willfully doesn't really carry weight in this discussion.
INTENT does, and you said verbatim that their intent doesn't matter in your decision tree; that's where you are on really shaky ground, friend.
If you have reason to think the 3rd party is colluding with your attacker, or they represent a separate lethal threat, or you used other options and they failed and the lethal threat remains... Maybe.
But if I read you, you don't have any way to deal with a 13 year old girl who's unintentionally incidentally interfering with your use of lethal force? You would really shoot her just to get her off you or out of the way? That just sounds crazy to me.
Let me elaborate. Suspect 's actual intent does not matter. What I perceive his intent to be does, as long as I have a proper reason to believe whatever the opponent's intent to be. (Graham v. Conner)
There are numerous cases where shooters were found not guilty after shooting someone who they mistakenly thought had intent ti harm them.
According to your " intent" logic, you cannot shoot a person spraying bullets at you, if he is saying,"I don't intend to kill you. I am just shooting bullets and you are just standing in the path."
If INTENT of objective is what counts,then when a mentally ill person shoots at you thinking venting you with bullet hole will improve your health, you should just get shot, since you are claiming it is illegal to shoot someone who has no intent to harm you.
No one really know what is an intent of another. It has to be judged by actions.
When someone is trying to kill me, and his buddy clutch on my gun, I say I have very reasonable ground to believe he is aiding his buddy.
Last edited:
The same way we determine whether if a perpetrator in any other scenarios where people are shot are a threat or not.
Is it always accurate? No. But, not recognizeing a threat as a threat has its own share of risks too.
Not every people who use deadly force against you have a "Hardened felon with intent to kill. Shooting justified!" tatooed on their face.
Of course, if you are saying it is less obvious, and more articulation may be needed, I agree with that.
Last edited:
Flintknapper
Member
Gentlemen, I'd submit you are wasting your time here.
Trying to reason with folks that have ingested too much of that 'Warrior Spirit' and/or 'I'm going home at the end of the day' (at ANY cost)...thinking, is an exercise in futility.
I would predict some very serious legal trouble in someone's future.
Hope I am wrong.
Trying to reason with folks that have ingested too much of that 'Warrior Spirit' and/or 'I'm going home at the end of the day' (at ANY cost)...thinking, is an exercise in futility.
I would predict some very serious legal trouble in someone's future.
Hope I am wrong.
Unarmed opponent is stopping you from shooting another person who is trying to kill you. You tried non-leathal option, and it did not work. You're about to be killed.
What's your solution?
Even if you think you don't want to argue with me, you can surely enlighten the rest of the people with your awewome reaon.
Last edited:
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989) is inapposit. It was a 42 USC 1983 case dealing with the question of the reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment of the seizure of a person by police. In citing cases, it's necessary to understand the context of the case. Graham really doesn't have anything to do with the situations being discussed here.TestPilot said:
Yes and no. You can't know his actual intent. You must infer his intent from his actions. And to justify your act of violence against him, you must be able to articulate why a reasonable person, in like circumstances and knowing what you know, would have concluded that he intended immediately kill or gravely injury you (or help someone else do so).TestPilot said:
So if:
TestPilot said:
But, in the case of a distraught thirteen year old, you're probably going to have a tougher time of it.
The real point is that details matter a great deal. Simplistic, chest thumping, like:
-
TestPilot said:
-
TestPilot said:
We also need to consider possible alternatives to "blowing away" a distraught thirteen year old girl or some similar third party.
I did not say shooting will be my only response, nor did I say I won't consider an alternative.
Also, I was not describing a situation where the unarmed person is a true 3rd party, although I may have used that term liberally in error, but rather just a 3rd person.
So, it appears that it is not my position on the matter that you object to, but rather my expression of it. Only difference between you and me is that you have a tendency to assume that someone described as "distraught thirteen year old girl" is an innocent 3rd party, while I don't.
Last edited:
Walt Sherrill
Member
Walt Sherrill said:
I did read it carefully. I found that the code didn't limit things to an "instigator" (or assailant), but did directly address MUTUAL COMBAT -- which includes both parties. Here's what it say, again, with emphasis added:
but such person, or the person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was committed...
Shooting an intervening bystander isn't "declining" any further struggle and pulling that trigger arguably makes you a mutual combatant even if that role was not clear prior to that point. That same section of the code also addresses the actions of those trying to defend others. You're picking and choosing your citations and interpreting them to suit your viewpoint, not necessarily with ill-intent, but perhaps because you've not done enough reading about or done enough research into the topic.
In the earlier examples, mama or an upset daughter may be trying to prevent lethal combat and protect a loved one. That is a protected type of behavior under California Code 193 (part 3.) The code gives THEM the right to use lethal force against YOU if they view you as a bad guy attempting to harm someone else. In your examples that is not you're intent but they may not see it as you do.) In those examples, however, they are not using lethal force, while you contend their actions allows you to use it against them.
Blasting or killing Mama or daughter because you think one or the other is keeping you from protecting yourself isn't likely to be viewed as a lawful act. And that loopy street person/drunk who may also get "blasted" if he obstructs a good sight picture, may not even realize you're armed! None of these folks are mutual combatants as the code uses the term. None of the folks you used in your examples are using lethal force or are likely to be viewed as a direct threat to you using the Common Law standard defined as a belief "in the mind of a person of ordinary firmness" that such is the case. You described them as threats, but threats at all because they could or did impede your ability to defend yourself in the way you think best. It may be tough to convince a jury that you did the right thing.
As you originally described the situations, you could knock them down, strike them with the butt of your weapon, trip them (reducing the encumbrance), use them as a shield, seek nearby cover, or get the hell out of Dodge. If you're not with a loved one or someone you also need to protect, getting the hell out of Dodge is not as cowardly as it sounds. And as you may have found in pistol competition or at the range, hitting a moving target isn't always easy.
If the bad guy is shooting at you -- and is not "about to shoot you" -- you may still get away safely, or move to cover, which will give you an advantage in returning shots. Having a family member or loved one with you complicates things and limits your options, and you didn't mention that -- but blasting someone who is not directly attacking or is not using lethal force against you is not likely to be your best course of action. If one of the impeding individuals are are badly harmed by your actions, you will likely face serious charges; if one of those people die, you would likely be charged with manslaughter or murder.
Were any of this to happen on your property or in your home, things would be viewed differently and you would have some additional forces working in your favor. But you'd not likely have all those bystanders, unless the altercation happened at a yard party.
Getting a license to carry a concealed weapon in California seems to be difficult. (I understand that the "good cause" requirement is being contested, but even then, Sheriffs have and likely will continue to have great power in denying permits to residents of their counties.) I understand too that in highly populated counties the license may be further constrained, and may apply ONLY to that county; cross the line and the rules are different. Are you licensed to carry? If not, much of this discussion is inappropriate and the actions discussed are unquestionably illegal.
You probably feel some of those responding are just giving you a hard time. They are, but their intent, like mine, may be more to help you than hinder you. As several of us have tried to explain, the laws governing the use of lethal force are not as simple and clear-cut as you think. Using lethal force always involves a risk and must be used ONLY as a last resort.
.
Last edited:
pittspilot
Member
Hey TestPilot,
From one pilot to another, look into taking one of Craig Douglas' ECQC classes. You will have no need to be passive, although if you start blasting through people, they may object.
From one pilot to another, look into taking one of Craig Douglas' ECQC classes. You will have no need to be passive, although if you start blasting through people, they may object.
For some reason my computer's audio isn't working today so I don't know what they are saying.
From looking at it, the point of the drill seems to be to practice counter gun disarms live-fire which can only be done by not shooting the person. So, you practice the hands on manipulation with a live opponent, then shoot beside them at a target.
The other training alternatives are inert or airsoft/Sim guns or live fire going through the motions on a target w/o another person present. I'm not defending the training, just looks like the point isn't to fight with person (a) while shooting person (b).
The only way going hands on with person (a) and not shooting them would make sense to me is if you dropped them rendering them non-functional before shooting another threat further away.
I agree Southnarc's ECQC course with sims would be a much better way to learn these skills in a much more realistic fashion without the live fire safety concerns.
From looking at it, the point of the drill seems to be to practice counter gun disarms live-fire which can only be done by not shooting the person. So, you practice the hands on manipulation with a live opponent, then shoot beside them at a target.
The other training alternatives are inert or airsoft/Sim guns or live fire going through the motions on a target w/o another person present. I'm not defending the training, just looks like the point isn't to fight with person (a) while shooting person (b).
The only way going hands on with person (a) and not shooting them would make sense to me is if you dropped them rendering them non-functional before shooting another threat further away.
I agree Southnarc's ECQC course with sims would be a much better way to learn these skills in a much more realistic fashion without the live fire safety concerns.
Your expression of it was inartful, inflammatory and left a lot of detail out. You claim now that you were not:TestPilot said:
TestPilot said:
Actually, you did effectively say you wouldn't consider an alternative. You wrote, in post 22:TestPilot said:
TestPilot said:
True, but neither is it fair to assume that I was referring to an innocent 3rd party.
That's quite an unfair stretch.
If you say "I will use deadly force against a person theatening me with death or serious injury," does that mean you will always use deadly force when the threat can be effectively stopped with less lethal means?
I will accept the criticism that I did not use the best way of expressing things.
However, neither is it proper to pick out things in someone's statement that isn't there.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
