CCW shoot out in Tulsa

Status
Not open for further replies.
PP - My apologies for the "grow up" comment. I associate much of the macho talk with times of my youth. My mistake.

Did you carefully read what Andrew posted ?

Is your legal advise coming from a practicing criminal defense lawyer ?

Have you spent anytime in criminal court ?

If you are carrying a firearm, avoiding it's use should be very high on your list of objectives. Getting into dust-ups does not seem to fit that objective.

Staying healthy and out of jail are both high on my list.

allan
 
C96,

Apology accepted.

Yes, our lawyer used to be an asst. DA in Washington county before going into real estate law (where there is more money).

I have spent alot of time in court but usually in cases involving child custody when I worked for Ohio's children's services division while working on my psychology degree (was a paycheck and school credit).

As far as a fight goes...I have not been in one in ten (10) years and I did not start that one. I was defending a guy that was being harrassed by 3 guys in a bar. They had singled him out for a "gay bashing" and bar management would not do anything unless they actual started something and our local police have about a 2-3 hour response time if a crime is not actually taking place. I guess I could have done nothing and let them follow him home when the bar closed and hour later and beat him to death in the street.

I do not start trouble. I ignore jerks. I ignore people that cut me off in traffic and just write them off as a-holes or think to myself "boy their life must suck for them to be so angry and I sure am glad I am not them". This being said I will not flee every time I think something might go south. I just will not do it. I will also never allow myself or a loved one to be physically violated without response.
 
CCW shootout

I started this post and am amazed at the different discussions that have come up. I guess we can live in scenario land forever so with that in mind let me put one in that could actually happen. I have eaten at that Waffle House and I was thinking, what if I had just stepped around the corner when the man with the real gun shot and that bullet just missed me? I would draw and shoot him as fast as I could and as soon as I started shooting and took out the first man the other one with the lighter turned to face me and I saw a look alike gun I would shoot him. What a mell of a hess. (hell of a mess). One of the biggest problems I see is that no 2 states have the same laws. I know someone will jump on this if they are from Oklahoma. But as I understand it you are not allowed to draw a weapon because you are getting your ass kicked, it is not considered deadly force.(providing they do not have any type of weapon in their hand) One exception is in my case. Oklahoma says that because I am over 62 and someone tries to kick s--t out of me for fun I can shoot him if I feel my life is in danger. (I most likely will)
 
I feel no compulsion to convince anyone of any argument. I find a few statements made in this thread so far silly, and others grounded in beliefs that have no basis in reality and legal theory. They represent opinions and the world as we wish it, as opposed to the way it is.


Frankly, Penguin, if you remain committed to your beliefs about the appropriateness of armed men having the luxury of settling disputes “man to man”, you might just one day be afforded the opportunity to convince the state of it. Jurors will ponder why someone who decides to arm himself feels he can fight recklessly, for any reason other than fending off an immediate attack.


Your scenario presented still contains the assumption that the blow – a shove, was necessary. Intent does factor; was it out of anger, or the need to stop an assault?

PlayboyPenguin said: Guy 1 is sitting in a diner. . . .

Show me a case where guy 1 is charged with a crime.


Well, lets hear it? Site a case with the previously stated circumstances where a person defending themselves was convicted of a crime. I am open to hear it.
Click to expand...

I’ll show you actual cases, not hypothetical scenarios, where actual force was used and responded to, but the “defender” was convicted. I have 3 cases for your consideration.

1. United States of America v. Bennie L. PETERSON, Appellant. Commonly cited case for demonstrating to law students that an initiator or provoker does not have justification for using self-defense, even if an encounter degrades into one that threatens the initiator’s life.

Peterson

History:
Three men had gone to an alley behind the defendant’s home to steal windshield wipers from Peterson’s wrecked car. The deceased, Keitt, had taken items from his car before, and was warned that day by Peterson not to do it again. Peterson emerged from his house to challenge Keitt, words were exchanged, and Peterson returned to his house to retrieve his pistol. Keitt was about to leave with the stolen property. Peterson paused briefly to load the pistol. "If you move," he shouted to Keitt, "I will shoot." He walked to a point in the yard slightly inside a gate in the rear fence and, pistol in hand, said, "If you come in here I will kill you." Keitt exited from his car, took a few steps toward Peterson and exclaimed, "What the hell do you think you are going to do with that?" Keitt then made an about-face, walked back to his car and got a lug wrench. With the wrench in a raised position, Keitt advanced toward Peterson, who stood with the pistol pointed toward him. Peterson warned Keitt not to "take another step" and, when Keitt continued onward, shot him in the face from a distance of about ten feet. Death was apparently instantaneous.

Finding: Manslaughter.
It has long been accepted that one cannot support a claim of self-defense by a self-generated necessity to kill. The right of homicidal self-defense is granted only to those free from fault in the difficulty; it is denied to slayers who incite the fatal attack, encourage the fatal quarrel or otherwise promote the necessitous occasion for taking life. The fact that the deceased struck the first blow, fired the first shot or made the first menacing gesture does not legalize the self-defense claim if in fact the claimant was the actual provoker. In sum, one who is the aggressor in a conflict culminating in death cannot invoke the necessities of self-preservation.

We think the evidence plainly presented an issue of fact as to whether Peterson's conduct was an invitation to and provocation of the encounter which ended in the fatal shot.


2. State of North Carolina v. Eddie Purnell Ammons, Jr, Defendant. A man attacked and struck repeatedly with a weapon – in this case a stick, fights back and fatally stabs his attacker. The jury felt he had retreated to a position of safety in a vehicle and the self defense was not justified.

Ammons

History:
On 9 June 2002, defendant pawned a VCR to Roher for ten dollars, and agreed to pay thirty dollars to redeem the device. A dispute arose over the amount needed to redeem the VCR. On 17 June 2002, Roher asked defendant to come to his house to redeem the VCR. On 18 June 2002, defendant, driven by his uncle, Gerald Locklear (“Locklear”), arrived at Roher's house in a Ford Thunderbird whose passenger side window was broken and could not be rolled up.
The evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the State, tends to show that defendant came armed with a sharpened knife to confront Roher in his home over the disputed VCR, and that the confrontation led to a fight between the two men. Roher followed defendant as he left his home and picked up a bed slat which he swung at defendant, hitting defendant four times on the arm. Defendant attempted to block the swings with his arm, but was struck in the neck by one of the blows. Defendant produced a knife, told Roher to stop hitting him, to keep the VCR, and not to come to his house.

Defendant then got into the passenger side of the automobile and asked Locklear to start the engine. Roher continued to strike at the vehicle and defendant as the car backed down the driveway. Upon reaching the road, the vehicle's engine cut off. As Locklear attempted to restart the car, Roher continued to swing the slat at the vehicle. Defendant produced the lock blade knife, reached outside the window, and stabbed Roher through the heart while his uncle restarted the engine. The car then pulled away and defendant returned home with Locklear.

Finding: Manslaughter.
The jury felt his life was no longer in danger. Although he had retreated to a car which had a broken window which had stalled in the attempt to leave, they felt he was in a position of safety from death.


3. Ernest William Ramsey, Appellant v. Commonwealth of Virginia. The defendant, attacked and struck with a baseball bat during an argument initiated by the defendant, produces a knife and fatally stabs his attacker. The jury decided he was culpable in his death and declined self-defense.

Ramsey

At trial, the evidence proved that when appellant called his friend, Angel Sanchez, he spoke with the deceased, J.D. Stephens, who lived at the Sanchez home. Later that afternoon, Sanchez arrived at appellant's apartment to pick him up. Sanchez told appellant he needed to get some money from his mother. Sanchez testified that appellant said "[Stephens] needed to stop talking so much **** and that if he didn't somebody was going to hurt him or kill him." Sanchez testified that although appellant "seemed mad at [Stephens]," appellant was agitated mostly because of the delay and said he did not want to be late.

When they arrived at the Sanchez's home, Sanchez went inside and appellant waited in the car. Stephens, who had been drinking alcohol, was sitting in the living room holding a baseball bat. After ten or fifteen minutes, appellant entered the house because Sanchez "took too long." When Sanchez came into the living room, he noticed that Stephens and appellant were "having words." According to Sanchez, appellant was "standing over top [Stephens]," telling Stephens that he "needed to quit talking so much ****." Stephens told appellant "to get out, get out of his house" and was still holding the baseball bat. Sanchez testified that he told appellant, "Come on, let's go, leave him alone." Sanchez then walked outside with his mother.

Sanchez and his mother walked across the driveway and were standing on a neighbor's porch. They had been on the neighbor's porch for less than five minutes when. Sanchez testified that he saw appellant open the screen door, walk backwards off the porch, and walk away. Stephens then emerged from the house with one hand over his chest and the other holding the baseball bat. Stephens said, "Call the law, he got me, he got me." The medical examiner's report indicated Stephens died of a single stab wound in his left chest area.

Appellant testified he went into the house because Sanchez "took so long coming back." He testified that he was not agitated from the telephone conversation and did not start the argument with Stephens. However, he told Stephens that he "should stop talking so much **** on the telephone to people that you don't know nothing about."

He testified that after Sanchez and his mother went out the door, he turned to follow them. Stephens then hit him from behind with the baseball bat. After Stephens hit him on the back and shoulder with the bat, Stephens hit him a second time across the shoulder. As Stephens again "was coming down . . . with the baseball bat," appellant retrieved his knife and opened it. Appellant testified that he held the knife, intending to frighten Stephens away with it, and that Stephens ran into the blade. Appellant testified that he had not had any fights or difficulty with Stephens until that day and that he had the knife because he used it in his work.

Appellant testified that he walked to a nearby store, where he asked Sam Brown, a captain with the sheriff's office, to call the police because he had stabbed someone. After appellant gave a statement at the police station, the police took him to the hospital because he indicated that his shoulder was hurting. The treating doctor testified that appellant had a contusion of the right shoulder and that the injury could have been caused by a blunt object such as a baseball bat. He proscribed medication and a sling to hold the arm.

A toxicologist testified that Stephens had a blood alcohol level of .22% by weight by volume at the time of his death.

Finding: Second Degree Murder. The jury disbelieved the Defendant’s assertion to self defense, and looked to his statements and actions for reasons to believe he provoked and incited the attack.



As I stated earlier, you roll the dice, you may loose. Here were 3 cases of men whose lives were in danger. Yet by their actions:

One was not afforded the ability to argue self-defense, by matter of law, PERIOD. He forfeited it.
One was determined to not be in grave danger in a stalled car, even though he was being attacked, and the jurors pondered why he prepared for a confrontation by arming himself.
One had his state of mind evaluated by damaging statements normally considered heresay, and those statements impacted his claim to self-defense.
 
Bullfrog,
Can you not see the differences there??? Really? The guy went back into his home and got a gun and you think that is the same as being attacked in public? In the second one the man invited the person into his home while arguing a debt. In the third these two men were aquainted and involved in a mutually agreed upon association. I am afraid I cannot expain any further if you cannot recognize these differences. It is obvious you are not a lawyer because you are trying to relate precedence from unrelated circumstances. These were not one stranger attacking another. In none of these cases was someone attacked and then defended themselves with appropriate force. In fact the first two are pretty clear cases of someone thinking their weapon gave them the upper hand and trying to exploit that fact. You also left out a great deal of the evidence presented in all three cases.
 
bullfrog,

No one has ever said fight recklessly or look for a fight. What we are saying is you shouldn't need to spend your life running out of an area every time someone looks at you cross eyed or feels the need to be an *******. Ignore the dummy sure and don't throw the first punch but if he starts swinging swing back. If you so feel the need to leave do so and under right circumstances I am sure everyone would. But there are other times when you shouldn't have to run from someone who is an idiot and might maybe get physical.
 
In Florida the shooter would be fine.

He left the argument and was followed by the assailant even though under Florida law he had no obligation to do so, the assailant then produced a firearm (a reasonable person would have believed it was a firearm). In other words the assailant escalated the situation. The shooter then drew his firearm fired two shots I am assuming the assailant then ran the shooter did not at that point attempt to continue the fight. Unfortunately, the two shots hit a bystander, the shooter would not be charged with any wrong doing as the shots were fired during his own reasonable defense during the commission of a a felony by the assailant. The assailant would be charged with attempted murder as he is the one responsible for the innocent bystander being shot. In fact, the shooter would also be immune from civil prosecution by the innocent bystander because Florida law provides civil immunity from damages caused by defending oneself during the commission of a crime. The only person subject to being sued would be the shooter. In addition, it is unlikely that the shooter (victim) would have been arrested as Florida has a strong presumption of innocence in acts of self-defense.
 
Can anyone explain this to me? Case 2 from above:

2. State of North Carolina v. Eddie Purnell Ammons, Jr, Defendant. A man attacked and struck repeatedly with a weapon – in this case a stick, fights back and fatally stabs his attacker. The jury felt he had retreated to a position of safety in a vehicle and the self defense was not justified.

Ammons

History:
On 9 June 2002, defendant pawned a VCR to Roher for ten dollars, and agreed to pay thirty dollars to redeem the device. A dispute arose over the amount needed to redeem the VCR. On 17 June 2002, Roher asked defendant to come to his house to redeem the VCR. On 18 June 2002, defendant, driven by his uncle, Gerald Locklear (“Locklear”), arrived at Roher's house in a Ford Thunderbird whose passenger side window was broken and could not be rolled up.
The evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the State, tends to show that defendant came armed with a sharpened knife to confront Roher in his home over the disputed VCR, and that the confrontation led to a fight between the two men. Roher followed defendant as he left his home and picked up a bed slat which he swung at defendant, hitting defendant four times on the arm. Defendant attempted to block the swings with his arm, but was struck in the neck by one of the blows. Defendant produced a knife, told Roher to stop hitting him, to keep the VCR, and not to come to his house.

Defendant then got into the passenger side of the automobile and asked Locklear to start the engine. Roher continued to strike at the vehicle and defendant as the car backed down the driveway. Upon reaching the road, the vehicle's engine cut off. As Locklear attempted to restart the car, Roher continued to swing the slat at the vehicle. Defendant produced the lock blade knife, reached outside the window, and stabbed Roher through the heart while his uncle restarted the engine. The car then pulled away and defendant returned home with Locklear.

Finding: Manslaughter.
The jury felt his life was no longer in danger. Although he had retreated to a car which had a broken window which had stalled in the attempt to leave, they felt he was in a position of safety from death.

Defendant was determined to not be in grave danger in a stalled car, even though he was being attacked, and the jurors pondered why he prepared for a confrontation by arming himself.
Click to expand...
 
Eleven Mike said: Can anyone explain this to me? Case 2 from above . . .
Click to expand...

Mike,

Not sure what is unclear. From the appellant court recorder:

There was sufficient evidence negating a second-degree murder defendant's claim of self-defense where the jury could find that the threat was no longer imminent when defendant acted, and that he lacked a reasonable belief in the threat of serious bodily injury. . . . . . In light of this evidence, a jury could find that defendant lacked a reasonable belief in the threat of serious bodily injury or death at the time he stabbed Roher, as defendant had reached the relative safety of the car and such a threat was no longer imminent. Further evidence negating the reasonableness of defendant's belief in the need to kill is found in his hasty departure from the scene. See State v. Watson, 338 N.C. 168, 181, 449 S.E.2d 694, 702 (1994) (overruled on other grounds, State v. Richardson, 341 N.C. 585, 461 S.E.2d 724 (1995)) (holding such flight would permit a jury to infer defendant harbored a sense of guilt inconsistent with a killing justified on the basis of self-defense). As sufficient evidence of the elements of second degree murder and evidence negating defendant's claim of self- defense were presented, the trial court correctly denied defendant's motion to dismiss the charge of second degree murder and all lesser-included offenses at the close of all the evidence, and the case was properly submitted to the jury for determination of the disputed factual issues.
Click to expand...


Ammons may have been justified of using the displayed knife before he made his way into the vehicle. However, once he made it there, even through the deceased pressed his attack, the dynamic changed. The court felt that considering the totality of the situation, even in a stalled car with no protection of a window (it was broken), Ammons claim to self defense lacked justification, and supported it with other objective evidence.


PlayboyPenguin said: This being said I will not flee every time I think something might go south. I just will not do it. I will also never allow myself or a loved one to be physically violated without response.
Click to expand...

Pengiun. Do whatever you wish. Perhaps you'll provide Oregon with an opportunity to help define case law someday.
 
even in a stalled car with no protection of a window (it was broken), Ammons claim to self defense lacked justification
Click to expand...
This is what I'm talking about. Would you not agree that the jury was completely wrong in this? How many times does someone have to smack a person with a board, following him even when he is trying to get away, before it looks like that person means business? How can they fail to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt, considering he was being attacked with a weapon?

such a threat was no longer imminent
Click to expand...
I'd say right outside the window and still swinging is imminent.

the jurors pondered why he prepared for a confrontation by arming himself.
Click to expand...
Carrying a knife is not necessarily arming oneself. Most knives are tools. If he was arming himself, no evidence is given to indicate malicious intent. Did the jury have additional evidence that he was arming himself in order to attack, rather than for his own defense? If not, arming oneself should not prejudice one's case.
 
Last edited:
the jurors pondered why he prepared for a confrontation by arming himself.
Click to expand...
This is stupid. Being prepared in case something happens doesn't mean you look for it, invite it, or want it. I carry a rubber too, that doesn't mean I plan on getting laid or going to a motel with a woman that looks less then fresh or that every woman I meet I try and get into bed.

It's called being prepared in case.
 
strike one - eating at waffle house
strike two - going to a parking lot to settle an argument while packing
strike three - missing your target

i'm predicting he's going to get what he deserves and deserve what he gets
Click to expand...

yeppers dumb$hit$ alround........
 
The legal system only occasionally dispenses justice. Do what you can to stay out of the legal system.

The experiences are seldom good and always expensive and not just in dollars.

allan
 
This is stupid. Being prepared in case something happens doesn't mean you look for it, invite it, or want it. I carry a rubber too, that doesn't mean I plan on getting laid or going to a motel with a woman that looks less then fresh or that every woman I meet I try and get into bed.
Click to expand...

C'mon, you trying to make us believe you don't try to get every woman you meet into bed???? :)

Seriously though, I can agree with the jurors if he went looking for someone, knowing it would be a bad scene, and armed himself beforehand. That would say to me that he knew it was going to go bad and wanted the upper hand. If he just routinely carried a knife and was jumped by a stranger that would be different.

The main theme in the cases Bullfrog cited that seperate them from what we talked about was that those involved people with prior relationships and current disputes. That completely changes a situation.

If you go out looking for a guy that owes you money and take your gun "just in case" then you are doing the wrong thing. If you go to the grocery store and are carrying your gun "just in case" and get jumped by a stranger and choose to fight back (with or without the weapon) you did nothing wrong.
 
C'mon, you trying to make us believe you don't try to get every woman you meet into bed????
Click to expand...
If you saw some of the things round here calling themselves women you wouldnt ask that question :neener:
 
PlayboyPenguin isn't advising that you go looking for trouble, nor is he advocating that you start fights. He's talking about a very specific situation where despite your own efforts, a fight has been started with you by someone else. Their actions are outside your control, and they have created the situation.

It would seem to me that to say one cannot throw a punch when necessary if they're armed is to deny the whole concept of a force continuum. You have force options, no matter what your weapon, all the time. I think its of critical importance to be able to respond with an appropriate force level instead of quite literally simply suffering abuse at the hands of some unstable moron.

A reasonable, armed person IS allowed to defend himself against bodily harm, and he's allowed to do it with a force level that is appropriate for the situation. If that means matching a punch with a return punch, so be it. He's in a fight. Maybe it doesn't warrant lethal force, so the defender doesn't employ his lethal force option because he shouldn't.

Seems to me that denying someone the ability to fight back is essentially depriving that person of defensive means for situations that aren't necessarily life threatening, but are certainly health-threatening.
 
Eleven Mike said: Would you not agree that the jury was completely wrong in this? How many times does someone have to smack a person with a board, following him even when he is trying to get away, before it looks like that person means business? How can they fail to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt, considering he was being attacked with a weapon?
Click to expand...

No, I can not agree they erred in their decision. They were the finders of fact, they heard the testimony, saw the evidence. This is why even appellant courts stay out of the business of questioning facts when reviewing cases. They consider procedural matters and such, but do not question the facts of cases.

How can they not give him the benefit of the doubt? Based on the circumstances and evidence they were presented. Apparently they were not persuaded Ammons' life was in imminent danger once he reached the car and struck the blow. The dynamic changes that quickly. What 5 seconds ago may have been justified, they concluded no longer was.

C96 said: The legal system only occasionally dispenses justice.
Click to expand...

I am not of the opinion that the justice system regularly makes mistakes. They may not take care of criminals harshly enough. But, I am persuaded that judges and jurors do take their roles seriously, and endeavor to reach the right decision. If we say to ourselves that we cannot trust our fellow man with the ability to evaluate such things and come to a just conclusion, we cannot be trusted, either. The faith and trust in judgement we extend those actors in the justice system is the same trust we ask for and rely upon when we state we can be trusted to walk about society armed. If we conclude that a panel of jurors cannot arrive at a just decision over when a man is justified in killing another, then how can we claim to have that judgement?


Pengiun, I suspected you would dismiss these cases because they wouldn't fit your ideal scenario. Instead of looking for ways they don't matter because of (insert reason), consider the legal reasoning used to arrive at the verdict. The Common Law theories behind the reasoning used is fairly consistent in all states except Louisiana, and those theories, except when redefined by statutory law, will evaluate your actions.


Your attitude of giving no quarter and responding to attacks in like matter is not supported by most reputable trainers. It is also not welcomed in the legal system of men who walk about society armed. The case above shows even when attacked with a weapon, when the defendant responds with deadly force, the court evaluates the attack for evidence of an immiment threat to life, and the defendant's ability to avoid the threat without using force. The attack is not an excuse for a response. "I punched him because he punched me" is not a valid arguement.


If you harbor this attitude, and one day use that knife you carry or your firearm on another, expect to have it discussed in front of a jury. You have stated here several times that you would, and have, engaged in fighting "man to man", and you alluded to de-escalation as cowardly. I suspect we are not the only ones you share those comments with, that you make those to friends and others you know in your personal life. Your character will be evaluated. If you want to make a claim to self-defense, and want your side of the story heard, you will probably have to take the stand to do it. Expect someone to find these comments and bring them up. Expect to be asked about your past proclivity to fighting. Expect some of the jurors to see the world as you do, and others who won't, BUT regardless of their opinion, to set aside those opinions and reach a verdict based on the judges instructions and established law.


I am persuaded that men who walk about society armed can not afford to dismiss the attitude to endeavor to settle all conflicts peaceably, as much as is reasonable. The training community teaches this, the law certainly observes this, and society does as well.
 
C96,

I think most of us have read that one by now. If I am correct I read that there had been previous instances of trouble between the two men and that there were no witnesses. There were no injured dogs that were supposedly attacking this man (I think I would have shot a dog that threatened my life) and no other real evience that supported his story. i think the jury ssaw it as him going out and looking to end a situation that displeased him. RE: he had a problem with this guy and his dogs and went to solve it. Until I can read the court records I cannot make up my mind about it but I know his story is riddled with red flags.

I was also very put off by the defense trying to claim the dead man was "armed" because he had a screwdriven in his pocket.
 
Well, I hate to say it, but what a dumb a--. I can understand why he pulled it, and I can understand why he might have fired it, but to hit a bystander, who is inside (of his workplace)?? Put the gun back in the box it came in and don't take it out.
 
Bullfrog,

I am well aware that the jury saw a mountain of facts I did not see, and I am allowing for that. But what evidence could convince a jury that the defendant was absolutely, beyond all reasonable doubt, not in fear for his life? A bed slat can be a deadly weapon. It has a longer reach than a knife. The defendant was seated in a closed cage, through which he could have been easily reached with other weapons, if the attacker had been carrying a gun or knife.
 
Maybe I haven't lived right, but over my years I have been involved with the courts in Utah, the Bay Area of Ca. and Oregon. This as juror as well as defendant. I have been in court with relatives and close friends.

In my experience, the DA's office can be very political in what cases it decides to prosecute and how it does the prosecution. Some of the judges that I have seen have been extremely good, a couple of them politcal hacks of the very worst kind.

And the jury ? A jury of my peers ? Maybe now at my age, mostly old ladies that have few clues about law or logic.

In one of my jury services there was a lovely young lady tightly dressed that had to bring something to the judge a couple of times during the trial. Apparently the Bad Guy never took his eyes of the young ladies butt. The two old gals were ready to send him up for life for that reason, they wouldn't consider any other evidence. Fortunately for justice the guy was guilty.

In my opnion justice does get served occasionally but it seems to me it happens mostly by chance.

allan
 
green-
When you fire under stress it is very different from practice at the range. Do yourself an experament, find a paintball pistol and get someone willing to get shot by paintballs at close range to play the attacker.

Have the attack run at you full bore to tackle you, you natural dont want to be tackled (least I am assuming). Just hold the paintball gun at your side since paintball guns are generaly hard to fit into a holster. Without warning let him do his charge, try raising the paintball gun and firing before he can tackle you. See if all your paintballs go right where you are aiming or even hit the guy charging you.

Now you know that the worst this guy is going to do is tackle you and it might hurt, and you aren't drawing from concealment you are just raising it into position. So multiply it several times over.

Does hitting a bystander suck and is unfortunate? Yes it is. But firing while being attacked is a lot different then waiting for someone to yell draw and drawing your pistol at the range to shoot it.
 
Lupinus, I understand fully the action/reaction of both having a pistol pulled, and having someone "Rush Me". Training can take care of you, most of the time. I agree with everyone on this board that practice makes perfect. I think it's our obligation to be level headed when we are carrying!! For one, if you are going to pull your weapon, (for fear of life, yours, someone else's) whatever, you darn well better be able to hit what you are shooting at. That guy was very lucky it was a lighter. Not only would he have shot the wrong person, but if the man across from him had a real weapon, he would be the one that would have ended up dead.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top