A word on multiple attackers

[theory]

On a side note, I agree that non-confrontation is best, but it sounds like the guy that got attacked didn't have that option. Also, I did not mean to sound like I would just be randomly gunning down gang members, so Im sorry if you had that impression. Take care.

 

[uspJ]

I can see both sides to this. If you are placed in a situation where you are outnumbered, outgunned and havle little to no avenue of escape your pretty much done for if that is the will of your attacker. That being said, if I was in a situation where I felt like the only chance for survival I had was to act I would feel much more capable with more rounds than less. If it is well known that handguns are poor fight stoppers why would you choose a weapon that has a limited capacity (5-6 shots) over something of comparable size wich offers more rounds?

I agree that this story had more to do with software than hardware. Good awareness as well as a layered defensive system around his home that would deter thieves from his home in the first place would have been better than any gun.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by theory: To be more specific, outgunned or not, I will never put myself in the position for a bunch of hoodlums to decide my fate,...

Good. The victim in the case at hand had already done so, however, the moment he stepped out of his car and was ambushed. That's the lesson here.

So, with that said, if if forced to do so, I will defend myself and my family at the expense of a gang member(s) life.

Of course. Your use of the word "rather" led me to believe that you would opt to use deadly force even if you had a choice of not doing so; getting killed or injured, or losing a loved one, does not constitute such a a choice, at least in this country.

But while the victim referred to in the OP was certainly justified in using deadly force, that isn't the issue. He simply was not in a position to do it. Once he stepped out of his car and was jumped, as Sam1911 put it,

...he'd lost the "game," and his survival hinged 30% on his social skills and 70% on their intent and what passes for mercy.

If he had gone for a gun, with those odds, chances appear good that he'd have been killed or seriously wounded instead of injured but left alive. (Yes, he might have killed or wounded one of his attackers on his way down/out ... for whatever that's worth.)

The idea that an average Joe gun owner could step into a circle of four armed criminals who have the element of surprise, and intent to rob/injure/kill, and outdraw and outshoot them ALL, is absurd. "If only he'd had a ... (some kind of gun)," is barking up the wrong tree.

He survived. That means, from the point at which he exited his vehicle, to the point that the criminals departed the scene, he did exactly what he should have done.

He was mugged as he stepped out of his car by two men armed with knives and two men armed with guns. Trying to draw and shoot one man who already has a gun in his hand is a losing proposition unless you can grab his gun hand or knock him down. This fellow survived, but if he had reached for a gun, the game would have been over.

His best choice was no longer available to him once he stepped out. As someone has already said, that's reverse gear.

 

[Boothdt]

To be more specific, outgunned or not, I will never put myself in the position for a bunch of hoodlums to decide my fate, if I'm well armed or well trained. I have a 4 year old daughter with special needs, and it wont hurt my feelings a bit to spend the remainder of my life in jail if it means her and her mother are able to retreat.

I live in Ohio, and as such, I'm not required to retreat if there is a reasonable threat against my life. Lets not forget that there were four assailants with at least 2 guns and 2 knives. I have around 80 acres, adjoined by several larger land holders. In my situation, if they had the jump on me, Im probably not going to escape with my life. Sure, if I had a dozen neighbors, I might have a reasonable chance at a semi nonviolent confrontation, but I don't. My closest neighbor is over a mile away.

So, with that said, if if forced to do so, I will defend myself and my family at the expense of a gang member(s) life. There are some places left in this country where you don't go pointing deadly weapons unless you intend on using them, and my homestead and acreage is one of them.

I respect all laws, but I assure you that my life and the lives of my family members are worth far more to me than that of some chump that thinks he's tough because he has 3 other armed guys backing him up. With that said, if you want to rant about correctness, save it for a private conversation or another thread. I know my rights, and Im not going to lose a bit of sleep if I ever have to use them.

Please, run for office.

 

[2ndAmFan]

Does the phrase "Situational Awareness" ring any bells here? I see some people posting about what they'd do after they're under attack, but isn't the point of everything we learn intended to avoid those situations in the first place? We really don't have enough information to say, but where were this victim's exterior house lights? Did he extinguish his vehicle headlights before checking to make sure there were no threats nearby? Did his house have motion sensor lights? The man was very lucky he wasn't killed.

 

[fallout mike]

Really? Yall really think this guy just saw four guys trying to break in his house and he just pulled right up in his carport regardless? The guy lived out semi isolated. Yall don't think that just maybe they didn't hear his car or see his lights and hid behind a bush, tree, corner of the house, or something besides standing there waiting for him. All your sit awareness speculations are garbage. If nothing looks disturbed and they r hiding close to your car and rush you when you get out then you are officially screwed.