Hello all, I getting up there in years (and feeling every bit of it), and wonder at what point if any I could use stronger force on an attacker when threatened. Say a fit twenty year old threatens to kick my butt. When I was twenty I could easily kick my current butt. Do I simply take the beating or suck up my pride and try to deescalate. I may be old but I'm still proud. God bless those who take the high road and suck up their pride. I know I can't pull a gun and shoot him, but at what point will the law recognize it's a different level of threat between ages.
Confrontations
- Thread starter caleb
- Start date
- Status
Hungry Seagull
member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2009
- Messages
- 2,167
Caleb, you describe what both of us have.
Beatings and blunt force is out of the question. Suppose wife got hit. Her bones wont take the impact not the way they are now.
Me? Heh. Hit me on the noggin a few times and wait until I drop from problems in my chemistry.
However, there is still enough left in us for one good sunday punch or hit. Some of the younger folks aint ate lead pipes or other items like belgian bricks and such in the days gone by. School is constantly teaching them young folks to run away from Bullies and such and non violence in most places. Most of them never got hit in thier lives.
Pack heat, shoot them young things if you are getting hurt bad. Usually in the Courts they will try to present to you a defense known as difference or disparity in force. Say that you are 90 years old and barely walks 4 blocks with a walker assistance. And this 20 something 6 feet tall is waling on you.
You shoot that little clown dead and get dragged into court. When they see just how frail you are.... case closed most of the time.
By the way, watch out for the little old grumps packing a few loose belgian bricks or weapons in thier nice little pouches LOL. Oh and a Taser unit etc... on up to a .45
Beatings and blunt force is out of the question. Suppose wife got hit. Her bones wont take the impact not the way they are now.
Me? Heh. Hit me on the noggin a few times and wait until I drop from problems in my chemistry.
However, there is still enough left in us for one good sunday punch or hit. Some of the younger folks aint ate lead pipes or other items like belgian bricks and such in the days gone by. School is constantly teaching them young folks to run away from Bullies and such and non violence in most places. Most of them never got hit in thier lives.
Pack heat, shoot them young things if you are getting hurt bad. Usually in the Courts they will try to present to you a defense known as difference or disparity in force. Say that you are 90 years old and barely walks 4 blocks with a walker assistance. And this 20 something 6 feet tall is waling on you.
You shoot that little clown dead and get dragged into court. When they see just how frail you are.... case closed most of the time.
By the way, watch out for the little old grumps packing a few loose belgian bricks or weapons in thier nice little pouches LOL. Oh and a Taser unit etc... on up to a .45
lanternlad1
Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2007
- Messages
- 770
A fist is a deadly weapon. Many boxers have died in the ring, and they were in better shape than most of us here. I'd say pepper spray is a good way to diffuse the "I'm gonna kick your butt." people, and your gun is there for when you really need it.
You ALWAYS try to avoid a confrontation.
9 times out of 10 even if you WIN, you haven't really WON anything.
We have had the discussion about this in the past, it is my belief that in the modern age, PCP and other drugs make it a moot point. IN the 1800's there wasn't PCP, so the law is built on an older construct. Doesn't matter how young or old or what sex the attacker is, if they are on PCP / Meth / Cocaine / Crack or other drugs they will not feel pain like a normal person, there inhibitions will be gone so warnings and common sense and judgment will be gone as well.
9 times out of 10 even if you WIN, you haven't really WON anything.
We have had the discussion about this in the past, it is my belief that in the modern age, PCP and other drugs make it a moot point. IN the 1800's there wasn't PCP, so the law is built on an older construct. Doesn't matter how young or old or what sex the attacker is, if they are on PCP / Meth / Cocaine / Crack or other drugs they will not feel pain like a normal person, there inhibitions will be gone so warnings and common sense and judgment will be gone as well.
Hungry Seagull, hey I have one of those little pouches with a .357 SP 101, but still talk bigger than I walk. The wife even tells me you better be quiet or some punk will shoot you. I just reply, I practice every week and they don't. But hey that theory got dispelled in a thread here a few months ago.
Asking for trouble packing in my grandpa pouch when taking those walks with my wife. Where am I suppose to carry it in my shorts and a tee shirt. When I was a kid older folks corrected my bad behavior and it was called a village. Now I still attemp to correct bad behavior but the courts and kids are different that when I was young. I will have to watch my mouth and my wife is right more often than I.
Hungry Seagull
member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2009
- Messages
- 2,167
Well that one would apply to every lawful citizen armed legally and dragged into court for shooting someone now would it not?
Sure there is a certain amount of... MANLY confidence in one's own weapon and it's all good. Such statements should not be taken as intent to actually go out and shoot someone.
Besides if I hear that thing talking, Im gone!
There is a disconnect between the previous generation and today's youth.
I worry about that more than anything.
Sure there is a certain amount of... MANLY confidence in one's own weapon and it's all good. Such statements should not be taken as intent to actually go out and shoot someone.
Besides if I hear that thing talking, Im gone!
There is a disconnect between the previous generation and today's youth.
I worry about that more than anything.
I take carrying a concealed weapon seriously, I carry with the attitude that unless my life is directly threatened I’m going to be the one to back down. Someone that posts here has a sig. line to the effect that as soon as you draw you place your self at the mercy of the Justice System, not something I want to do if I have any other option. My philosophy is that pride (ego) has no place in carrying a concealed weapon.
Not your place. All you're doing is asking for trouble
Not your place. All you're doing is asking for trouble
mcdonl
Member
In Maine, if you engage with intent to escalate, you are on your own and responsible for your actions after that... so... if the punk kid says... "What you lookin at grampa." and you say "Shut up you punk kid...." you now are an active participant in that confrontation when it escelates. You have lost your right to a self defense argument. This was pretty much the scenario that the lawyers laid out in class two weeks ago.
Now, if the punk kid says... "What you lookin at grampa.", and you just shut your mouth and try to leave the situation, and it escalates on it's own you can then use whatever force you need to to stop the attack. Thats in Maine, not sure about FL law.... Not even 100% sure about Maine law but this is a pretty close representation of it.
Leroy
Now, if the punk kid says... "What you lookin at grampa.", and you just shut your mouth and try to leave the situation, and it escalates on it's own you can then use whatever force you need to to stop the attack. Thats in Maine, not sure about FL law.... Not even 100% sure about Maine law but this is a pretty close representation of it.
Leroy
Great credo!
Right on point.
Avoid first.
How about one of these, it that doesn't work?
http://www.cabelas.com/prod-1/0044111228579a.shtml
Hungry Seagull
member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2009
- Messages
- 2,167
Had a thread talking about nonlethals a time ago. Ive decided that pulling a NL only to learn kid pulls iron is not a good thing.
I see NL devices as a stopgap as criminals increasingly grow accustomed to being gassed from Jail or otherwise pack real guns.
There are some folks who smile at you spraying NL stuff on them, wipe themselves off with shirt and advance now being motivated even more with desire to get hands onto you.
I see NL devices as a stopgap as criminals increasingly grow accustomed to being gassed from Jail or otherwise pack real guns.
There are some folks who smile at you spraying NL stuff on them, wipe themselves off with shirt and advance now being motivated even more with desire to get hands onto you.
mljdeckard
Member
Your question is perfectly legitimate. Every one of us has to decide where to draw the line between what you can walk away from and where you must stand and fight. Myself, for example, I have a physical constitution that belies my background. I have never been athletic or had a lot of upper body strength. In the army, I have to work hard to keep the minimum physical standard that comes easily to most other people. You wouldn't know this by looking at me. I have less actual physical strength than most people in my peer group. And I'm not as young as I used to be either.
Like someone said above, it's always best to avoid confrontation at all. The goal here is not to get to shoot someone, the goal is to NOT GET SHOT. When you carry long enough, you find yourself always evaluating the places you go, the people you hang out with, things like this, asking yourself if these actions are unsafe. You steer yourself away from things that make you need to use a gun in the first place.
Having said that, the ultimate question becomes, "Would a jury believe that I had no other choice but to use deadly force?" and I think that if you are older, you do get a bit of an adjustment at least. It can vary of course, I've known 75 year old men who can keep free-throwing hay bales long after I'm exhausted, but by and large, in the eyes of the general public, an elderly person will not have the same expectation to turn the other cheek as a younger person.
Non-lethals are devices employed by police officers to appease special interest groups who want them to say they tried something other than deadly force before they ultimately shot someone. The only people I advise to carry sprays and such are people who I don't believe are emotionally prepared to use deadly force.
Like someone said above, it's always best to avoid confrontation at all. The goal here is not to get to shoot someone, the goal is to NOT GET SHOT. When you carry long enough, you find yourself always evaluating the places you go, the people you hang out with, things like this, asking yourself if these actions are unsafe. You steer yourself away from things that make you need to use a gun in the first place.
Having said that, the ultimate question becomes, "Would a jury believe that I had no other choice but to use deadly force?" and I think that if you are older, you do get a bit of an adjustment at least. It can vary of course, I've known 75 year old men who can keep free-throwing hay bales long after I'm exhausted, but by and large, in the eyes of the general public, an elderly person will not have the same expectation to turn the other cheek as a younger person.
Non-lethals are devices employed by police officers to appease special interest groups who want them to say they tried something other than deadly force before they ultimately shot someone. The only people I advise to carry sprays and such are people who I don't believe are emotionally prepared to use deadly force.
Deanimator
Member
1. I avoid stupid people, especially stupid people who drink or use drugs.
2. I avoid the places where stupid people congregate, especially stupid people who drink or use drugs.
3. I don't like to fight.
4. If you make me fight, I'm not going to do it for my amusement. I'm going to do it to protect myself by stopping your unprovoked attack, by whatever means necessary.
5. If you don't want to get your joints dislocated or torn, punched in the throat, your kneecap(s) broken, your eyes gouged out, hit with something sharp and heavy, stabbed with whatever is close at hand (steak knife, etc.), shot, set on fire, or whatever is appropriate to your level of unprovoked violence, bother somebody else.
It's mostly stupid people who fight.
I don't like stupid people.
My sole duty is to protect myself, NOT to protect stupid people from themselves.
2. I avoid the places where stupid people congregate, especially stupid people who drink or use drugs.
3. I don't like to fight.
4. If you make me fight, I'm not going to do it for my amusement. I'm going to do it to protect myself by stopping your unprovoked attack, by whatever means necessary.
5. If you don't want to get your joints dislocated or torn, punched in the throat, your kneecap(s) broken, your eyes gouged out, hit with something sharp and heavy, stabbed with whatever is close at hand (steak knife, etc.), shot, set on fire, or whatever is appropriate to your level of unprovoked violence, bother somebody else.
It's mostly stupid people who fight.
I don't like stupid people.
My sole duty is to protect myself, NOT to protect stupid people from themselves.
bikerdoc
Moderator In Memoriam
See my thread on personal strategy. It may shed some light on this discussion.
mcdonl
Member
Caleb Says.... "Hungry Seagull, hey I have one of those little pouches with a .357 SP 101, but still talk bigger than I walk. The wife even tells me you better be quiet or some punk will shoot you."
All I am saying is this matters. If you elevate the situation in anyway then the Jury is going to consider it.
Talking big and avoiding the situation are conflicting tactics.
All I am saying is this matters. If you elevate the situation in anyway then the Jury is going to consider it.
Talking big and avoiding the situation are conflicting tactics.
Fred Fuller
Moderator Emeritus
Caleb,
I'd like to introduce you to John Farnam... the bolding is mine.
lpl
=====
19 Mar 03
Layers of response:
Years ago, Jeff Cooper delineated the "Color Code" and the "Principles of Personal Defense" in an effort to provide us with a logical model for one's thinking on the subject of mental preparedness. I'd like now to go to the next step and apply the same logic to the issue of personal appearance and demeanor, as we all agree that, in the domestic defensive environment, avoiding a fight is preferable to winning one.
Layer One: Nonattendance. The best way to handle any potentially injurious encounter is: Don't be there. Arrange to be somewhere else. Don't go to stupid places. Don't associate with stupid people. Don't do stupid things. This is the advice I give to all students of defensive firearms. Winning a gunfight, or any other potentially injurious encounter, is financially and emotionally burdensome. The aftermath will become your full-time job for weeks or months afterward, and you will quickly grow weary of writing checks to lawyer(s). It is, of course, better than being dead or suffering a permanently disfiguring or disabling injury, but the "penalty" for successfully fighting for your life is still formidable.
Crowds of any kind, particularly those with an agenda, such as political rallies, demonstrations, picket lines, etc are good examples of "stupid places." Any crowd with a high collective energy level harbors potential catastrophe. To a lesser degree, bank buildings, hospital emergency rooms, airports, government buildings, and bars (particularly crowded ones) fall into the same category. All should be avoided. When they can't be avoided, we should make it a practice to spend only the minimum time necessary there and then quickly get out.
"A superior gunman is best defined as one who uses his superior judgment in order to keep himself out of situations that would require the use of his superior skills."
Layer Two: Functional invisibility. We all need to practice to art of "being invisible." It is in our best interest to go our way unnoticed, both by potential predators and by the criminal justice system alike.
Whenever I travel, particularly to foreign countries, I endeavor to be the one that no one notices; no one recalls; no one remembers. I silently slip through the radar, leaving no trace, a nameless, faceless tourist. When in any public place, I try to be clean and well groomed, but I never wear bright colors, any kind of jewelry, or anything shiny. I smile a lot, but talk softly and as little as possible. As we say in the law enforcement business, "Courteous to everyone. Friendly to no one."
Loud talking, bright colors, Rolex watches, etc will consistently accumulate unwanted attention. On the other end of the spectrum, tattoos, poor grooming, loud and offensive language, a slovenly appearance, etc will also garner unwelcome notice.
Layer Three: Deselection. Any successful predator has the ability to quickly screen potential victims, focusing in on the ones who look as if they will make good victims and rejecting those who either (1) look too strong for expedient victimization or (2) don't conveniently fall into any particular category.
When invisibility fails, we need endeavor to be consistently deselected for victimization. We do this by making it a habit to appear alert, uninviting, self-confident, and strong. At the same time, we never loiter or appear indecisive. We are always in motion.
"Weakness perceived is weakness exploited!"
Layer Four: Disengagement: Our best interests are not served by any kind of engagement with potential predators. Successful disengagement involves posturing, bearing, verbalizations, and movement. It is in our best interest to disengage at the lowest reasonable force level, but we must simultaneously be prepared to instantly respond to unlawful force with superior force.
Potential predators, as they attempt verbal engagement, should be politely dismissed. Bearing and eye contact should always project strength and confidence. We should continuously be moving off the "line of force." We should be observant in every direction, giving potential predator duos and trios the distinct impression that they will not be able to sneak up on us.
When predators are confused, they are unable to focus sufficiently to carry off their victimization. Therefore, never let a potential predator seize the agenda. Don't answer his questions, and don't stay in any one place very long.
Disengagement, separation, and exit are our immediate goals when we have been selected or are being seriously evaluated by predators. However, if there is to be a fight, the best one is a short one. If a predator menaces me with a gun or a knife, I know that, before it is all over, there is a good chance that I will be shot or cut. However, within that prison of circumstance, I also know that the faster I can end the fight, the less hurt I'm going to get! If there must be a fight, I must explode into action, moving smoothly and quickly, in an effort to confuse and overwhelm my opponent before he has a chance to process all the information I'm throwing at him.
Ultimately, we must "have a plan." Potentially dangerous encounters must be thought about in advance. Decisions must be made. Skills must be practiced. Confusion, hesitation, and vacillation will always attract the attention of predators and simultaneously stimulate predator behavior.
/John
- http://www.defense-training.com/quips/2003/19Mar03.html
I'd like to introduce you to John Farnam... the bolding is mine.
lpl
=====
19 Mar 03
Layers of response:
Years ago, Jeff Cooper delineated the "Color Code" and the "Principles of Personal Defense" in an effort to provide us with a logical model for one's thinking on the subject of mental preparedness. I'd like now to go to the next step and apply the same logic to the issue of personal appearance and demeanor, as we all agree that, in the domestic defensive environment, avoiding a fight is preferable to winning one.
Layer One: Nonattendance. The best way to handle any potentially injurious encounter is: Don't be there. Arrange to be somewhere else. Don't go to stupid places. Don't associate with stupid people. Don't do stupid things. This is the advice I give to all students of defensive firearms. Winning a gunfight, or any other potentially injurious encounter, is financially and emotionally burdensome. The aftermath will become your full-time job for weeks or months afterward, and you will quickly grow weary of writing checks to lawyer(s). It is, of course, better than being dead or suffering a permanently disfiguring or disabling injury, but the "penalty" for successfully fighting for your life is still formidable.
Crowds of any kind, particularly those with an agenda, such as political rallies, demonstrations, picket lines, etc are good examples of "stupid places." Any crowd with a high collective energy level harbors potential catastrophe. To a lesser degree, bank buildings, hospital emergency rooms, airports, government buildings, and bars (particularly crowded ones) fall into the same category. All should be avoided. When they can't be avoided, we should make it a practice to spend only the minimum time necessary there and then quickly get out.
"A superior gunman is best defined as one who uses his superior judgment in order to keep himself out of situations that would require the use of his superior skills."
Layer Two: Functional invisibility. We all need to practice to art of "being invisible." It is in our best interest to go our way unnoticed, both by potential predators and by the criminal justice system alike.
Whenever I travel, particularly to foreign countries, I endeavor to be the one that no one notices; no one recalls; no one remembers. I silently slip through the radar, leaving no trace, a nameless, faceless tourist. When in any public place, I try to be clean and well groomed, but I never wear bright colors, any kind of jewelry, or anything shiny. I smile a lot, but talk softly and as little as possible. As we say in the law enforcement business, "Courteous to everyone. Friendly to no one."
Loud talking, bright colors, Rolex watches, etc will consistently accumulate unwanted attention. On the other end of the spectrum, tattoos, poor grooming, loud and offensive language, a slovenly appearance, etc will also garner unwelcome notice.
Layer Three: Deselection. Any successful predator has the ability to quickly screen potential victims, focusing in on the ones who look as if they will make good victims and rejecting those who either (1) look too strong for expedient victimization or (2) don't conveniently fall into any particular category.
When invisibility fails, we need endeavor to be consistently deselected for victimization. We do this by making it a habit to appear alert, uninviting, self-confident, and strong. At the same time, we never loiter or appear indecisive. We are always in motion.
"Weakness perceived is weakness exploited!"
Layer Four: Disengagement: Our best interests are not served by any kind of engagement with potential predators. Successful disengagement involves posturing, bearing, verbalizations, and movement. It is in our best interest to disengage at the lowest reasonable force level, but we must simultaneously be prepared to instantly respond to unlawful force with superior force.
Potential predators, as they attempt verbal engagement, should be politely dismissed. Bearing and eye contact should always project strength and confidence. We should continuously be moving off the "line of force." We should be observant in every direction, giving potential predator duos and trios the distinct impression that they will not be able to sneak up on us.
When predators are confused, they are unable to focus sufficiently to carry off their victimization. Therefore, never let a potential predator seize the agenda. Don't answer his questions, and don't stay in any one place very long.
Disengagement, separation, and exit are our immediate goals when we have been selected or are being seriously evaluated by predators. However, if there is to be a fight, the best one is a short one. If a predator menaces me with a gun or a knife, I know that, before it is all over, there is a good chance that I will be shot or cut. However, within that prison of circumstance, I also know that the faster I can end the fight, the less hurt I'm going to get! If there must be a fight, I must explode into action, moving smoothly and quickly, in an effort to confuse and overwhelm my opponent before he has a chance to process all the information I'm throwing at him.
Ultimately, we must "have a plan." Potentially dangerous encounters must be thought about in advance. Decisions must be made. Skills must be practiced. Confusion, hesitation, and vacillation will always attract the attention of predators and simultaneously stimulate predator behavior.
/John
- http://www.defense-training.com/quips/2003/19Mar03.html
rainbowbob
Member
Now THAT'S funny!
Actually, I think the ultimate question is, "Did you survive the assault?"
mljdeckard: I think I understand your point, and agree that sprays have no place in my "force continuum".
My thinking is that either I am successful in avoiding, de-escalating, or disengaging...or I'm not. If not, I'm past the point of spraying somebody with an irritant.
On the other hand, as you point out, persons without the resolve to use deadly force if necessary are perhaps a little better off with spray than without. Maybe.
However, non-lethal weapons DO have an important place in law enforcement other than appeasing special interest groups.
For example: My son, who is seriously mentally ill but is non-violent and has no criminal record, resisted being taken to the hospital by the EMTs during a particularly bad psychotic relapse. He was safely taken into custody by police using a taser when he tried to flee. He was hospitalized and treated and is doing very well now.
I credit the LEOs, who thoughtfully and effectively used non-lethal force on my beloved son, with saving his life.
mgkdrgn
Member
I'm not aware of any law anywhere that says you have to just "stand by" and get your a$$ kicked when you can do something about it.
If you live in such a place, I would suggest you move.
In SC, "fear of death or grievous bodily harm" is sufficient cause for the use of deadly force to defend yourself, as long as you are someplace you have a legal right to be, and are not engaged in criminal activity.
However, =this= is going to be a problem. This begins to bring your confrontation into the realm of "mutual combat", and you do not have (nor should you) =any= legal protection there. If you are going to carry, learn to "zip it" or stay home.
If you live in such a place, I would suggest you move.
In SC, "fear of death or grievous bodily harm" is sufficient cause for the use of deadly force to defend yourself, as long as you are someplace you have a legal right to be, and are not engaged in criminal activity.
However, =this= is going to be a problem. This begins to bring your confrontation into the realm of "mutual combat", and you do not have (nor should you) =any= legal protection there. If you are going to carry, learn to "zip it" or stay home.
I have very bad balance due to a physical injury 20+ yrs. ago. I can't run, and can't fight. I won't escalate a situation, I have turned the other cheek many times in my life. However, if I turn and walk away and a physical beating is about to be meted out to me by some 20 yr. old punk and I am packing my pistol you bet your royal rump, I'm going to shoot him. At my age and health condition I am not taking a a$$ whipping if I can help it. I'll take my chances with a jury, rather than a vicious animal.
mcdonl
Member
"I have very bad balance due to a physical injury 20+ yrs. ago. I can't run, and can't fight. I won't escalate a situation, I have turned the other cheek many times in my life. However, if I turn and walk away and a physical beating is about to be meted out to me by some 20 yr. old punk and I am packing my pistol you bet your royal rump, I'm going to shoot him. At my age and health condition I am not taking a a$$ whipping if I can help it. I'll take my chances with a jury, rather than a vicious animal."
And you would be justified in doing so. I would applaud you.
Leroy
And you would be justified in doing so. I would applaud you.
Leroy
If you can not avoid/evade;than feel no compunction about using ANY level of force to neutralize the threat.
Dittos on the "lead pipes and Belgian bricks" referenced earlier-these days everybody wants to dress like a cage fighter/MMA guy;but for th emost part a streetfighter is becomming a rare breed-too many want to simply "swarm&stomp" or bring a weapon...and like was stated earlier;a fist IS a weapon.
Dittos on the "lead pipes and Belgian bricks" referenced earlier-these days everybody wants to dress like a cage fighter/MMA guy;but for th emost part a streetfighter is becomming a rare breed-too many want to simply "swarm&stomp" or bring a weapon...and like was stated earlier;a fist IS a weapon.
daveit
Member
I've always been non-confrontational. I have 1st degree "midnight blue" belt (aka black belt...but black is synonymous with death in Korea) in Tang Soo Do so I'm sure I could handle my own at my current age. If someone wants to start something and I walk away like usual and they come at me they are going to end up in a world of hurt or with some holes in them.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
