Always give them an out?

[Godsgunman]

Personally I believe it is situational as far as "giving an out". For instance if someone breaks into my house theres a better chance I can leave an "out" for them than if I am walking down the street and find myself being attacked. With the breaking in scenario I am probably able to give a shout or some kind of command to alert BG that its in their best interest to leave before dealy force is needed. Obviously thats not always the case. But in an attack you usually dont have that luxury since the BG has already made up his mind to do you harm.

 

[easyg]

If you believe for one moment that that the possibility that someone may come back later is a justification for the use of deadly force, you are wrong.

No, I don't think that the possibility that someone may come back is a justification...

I think the very fact that they have forced there way in to my home is a justification.

Luckily, North Carolina allows the use of deadly force to prevent someone from forcing their way in to my home if I have reason to believe that intend to harm me or my family or to commit a felony.

 

[rwilson37643]

This should probably be a separate thread, but on a related note, one of My personal nightmare scenarios is finding someone in my home, but not having the need to fire. For example; from whatever beginning you can imagine you end up seeing someone in your living room trying to make off with the TV. They see you, and the fact that you are armed, and they surrender. do you hold them at gunpoint (not something ever want to do) or tell them to leave?

 

[Crusader103]

This should probably be a separate thread, but on a related note, one of My personal nightmare scenarios is finding someone in my home, but not having the need to fire. For example; from whatever beginning you can imagine you end up seeing someone in your living room trying to make off with the TV. They see you, and the fact that you are armed, and they surrender. do you hold them at gunpoint (not something ever want to do) or tell them to leave?

I think the post is related to the topic of giving one an out so I'll respond.

My general advice is to part ways with the bad guy, whether by allowing them to leave or instructing them to do so. Be a good witness and provide a good description, direction of travel, etc. It is generally not your position, nor in your best interest, to hold bad guys at gunpoint. Private citizens should only employ firearms in reasonable measures of defense, not law enforcement roles to include that of apprehension.

In the real world this is not always possible. It is the very reason that I highly suggest professional instruction on "holding a suspect at gunpoint." I can think of a myriad of situations in which it is either impossible or impractical to part ways with the aggressor. What happens when you have shot someone but they do not die immediately, which is the case for the overwhelming majority of attackers. Do you put another round in them for good measure? Do you tell the badly wounded, yet perhaps still aggression capable, guy to run away? What if you confront them upstairs in your home while your family is downstairs? Do you tell them to run away (downstairs past your family) or do you take measures to escort them out or hold them at gunpoint. What if your confrontation is nearby an elementary school? Do you order the armed bad guy to run away or do you take measures to either disarm them or hold them at gunpoint? The safest measure to ensure the safety of you and your loved ones in such situations may be to prone them out and await the police. You should know how to do so, not because it is a recommended course of action but perhaps the only reasonable course of action you have.

As far as purposefully giving someone an out, you should absolutely do so if you can. It is very difficult to plan for though, especially when the confrontation is a surprise. It is difficult to plan someone else's escape when your primary focus is on taking active steps to defeat their aggressive actions against you. Nonetheless, if you can hasten their departure by all means do so. To me that is more of a bonus though than the result of an intentional plan.

 

[Lost Sheep]

Don't limit your options, or theirs with tunnel vision on tactics

I think giving someone an out is always the right thing to to do, not out of common courtesy but for self preservation. My feelings on this are based on my understanding of human physiology and the "fight or flight" response.

When you give someone no "out" they are being backed into a corner where they have to fight, this is a very dangerous person. If you give them an "out", and they choose to fight, then you are the one with no choice and you have the physiological and psychological advantage.

Although no where near as serious or dangerous a situation as a gunfight/SD situation, I use this technique all the time when working as a doormen at local clubs. Give the person an option to leave and an option to fight. If you corner them and force a fight, they have the adrenaline and nothing to lose advantage, and this is someone you don't want to go against.

It has worked for me and I could see it applicable to a deadly encounter as well, IMO

Third choice they may have. Surrender/compliance.

Informing an aggressor of that choice in a strong, declarative voice sometimes reminds them that they DON'T have to fight. It also helps with witnesses who hear you say things like "STOP" or "PUT THE KNIFE DOWN".

Lost Sheep.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Good point. Miller mentions that, too. He suggests reminding an attacker that there will be consequences: "The police have been called and are on their way" (if it's in a bar or other public place--or if you've already called). It can help your attacker switch from "I want to mess him up" mode to "Time to leave" mode.

 

[WardenWolf]

I will give them an out if it is tactically expedient to do so. If I catch an intruder from behind, I will give them an opportunity to surrender so long as they do not have their gun trained on someone else. If they do, the only thing they'll hear is "BANG!" and no more.

 

[mljdeckard]

It is not my responsibility to GIVE them an out. But if there IS an out, and they want to take it, I will let them.

 

[mcdonl]

I think in an actual SD scenario the last thing one will have time to be thinking is, "hmm, if i stand here he can go there". Aside from not yelling "freeze" or "don't run" I don't see it as a practical consideration.

JustinJ, you just need to train more. If you doubt your ability to consider positioning, you may need to consider some professional training. What if you have to shoot your weapon? Are you going to consider who may be behind your aggressor? What if you are protecting your family? You would not want to chase a bad guy into the direct path of your loved ones.

I am in a situation where I have to respond to emergency situations and have to think on my toes, but I think that with a little training anyone could get there. Don't underestimate the benefits of IDPA and other types of games where you can learn to shoot under pressure, move, use cover/concealment... Knowing where you are, where you target is and other considerations of your environment need to be top priority...

 

[JustinJ]

JustinJ, you just need to train more. If you doubt your ability to consider positioning, you may need to consider some professional training. What if you have to shoot your weapon? Are you going to consider who may be behind your aggressor? What if you are protecting your family? You would not want to chase a bad guy into the direct path of your loved ones.

In the vast majority of SD shooting situations I've read or seen clips of things happen far too fast to allow for a consideration as to which way the BG will go. Seeing a loved one in the line of fire and responding accordingly is also a much faster thought process than trying to plan escape routes for an attacker. I don't really plan on chasing a bad guy in any direction. If a bad guy is in a position to reach my loved ones my plan will be to prevent him from doing so and there are more effective ways i believe than trying to redirect him. If an intruder enters my home redirecting a bad guy will likely be a moot point as the four legged body guards will reach him long before i do. This of course makes an out very hard for said bad guy to reach.

I am in a situation where I have to respond to emergency situations and have to think on my toes, but I think that with a little training anyone could get there. Don't underestimate the benefits of IDPA and other types of games where you can learn to shoot under pressure, move, use cover/concealment... Knowing where you are, where you target is and other considerations of your environment need to be top priority...

I'm not arguing that training is not of great value but the cost/benefit ratio for most civilians may not justify the necessity for higher levels. And in a practical sense the majority of civilian gun owners simply won't ever receive much if any. A LE or other emergency responder, which you appear to fall under, will almost certainly use such training regularly while someone like me probably never will. Also, the situations encountered by first responders will be very different than mine. I can't have my gun at the ready if i sense danger. If i'm out and an attacker comes i have to draw and fire as fast as possible while looking out for innocents as you mentioned. I just don't believe calculating positions of bad guy and myself relative to escape routes for him is practical.

 

[Skribs]

I think there's a difference between retreating and giving the criminal an out. In my mind, retreating is to fall back and hide or leave, and in my home/business (well I don't own a business, but if I did) I would not retreat unless the number of invaders made it prudent to. Giving them an out is giving them the option to leave before you shoot.

Home is different than outside. Outside you're open to misinterpretation, and they don't know where you live. If they break into your home, they obviously know where you live, and there isn't an avenue of retreat that doesn't involve you losing something. That said, I do agree with stand your ground laws, that whether or not I am able to be in a certain public location should not depend on the whims of criminals.

For me, it would all depend on whether I think this is just some punk in to grab a few DVDs or if it is someone ready to hurt me or my family/friends. If they are armed, it certainly changes things. If there are multiple assailants, it changes things. In any case, if someone has broken into my home or accosted me on the street, it is my personal belief that they have suspended their right to safety until such point as they cease their criminal activity. When they surrender or retreat, they are doing so to take back their right to safety. Anything that happens to them before they stop their attack is on them.