Do you have to fight?

[Bullet]

I would like to know if - do you have to fight?
I understand that if there is a disparity of force you can use your gun to defend yourself. But what if there is no disparity of force, being that it appears to be an even match.

My example is that a BG wants to fight you but you decline and try to leave. But the BG has you trapped with no escape. The BG has no weapons except fists. Can you draw and shoot if the BG won’t move out of your way so you can leave or do you have to fight?

 

[charliehustle10]

wouldn't shoot.

 

[fallout mike]

I would not fight anybody while packing. What if he somehow gets ahold of it. I really wouldn't wanna ve shot by my own weapon.

 

[beeenbag]

I am assuming you are asking from a legal stand point?

This is one of the many interperative areas, for example in my state you have to fear for your life or serious bodily injury. If you feel this way, all you have to do is tell the jury why and hope they see it the way you did. Based on that, I do not have that much faith in my fellow man to let my future lay in their hands. I will not shoot, or fight unless there is no other alternative. Ymmv

 

[heeler]

Yes, in the state of Texas under the right set of circumstances.
Someone who is better at this computer game than I will come along to link this set of circumstances.
Someone can kill you stone cold dead punching you and for certain they can inflict serious bodily harm to you.
But you better have it right and even then you may have to through a long lengthy legal process.

 

[rfwobbly]

This is one of the many interpretive areas, for example in my state you have to fear for your life or serious bodily injury.

If you're 60 with a bad knee and running is out of the question, and the BG is some young buff punk then you have a better chance. If on the other hand, the BG is 60 and you're 25 any jury is going to say you could have run. He might have hit you once, but you could have run.

The problem with this question is that it SEEMS to come from "Should I pull my gun" when the real question should be "Is the circumstance really worth killing someone over".

The times I've been in bars and personal issues erupted into "squaring off" one of the offenders had been "mouthy" for a long period of time and more than one request to cease was given by the offended party.

 

[jfdavis58]

There are no hard and fast rules from which you can draw a simple solution. Where I live and in many other places, terms like reasonably feel or reasonably expect that some action will lead to death or great bodily harm (which may have a definition) will be applied to a DEADLY FORCE SITUATION---after the fact and in the courtroom!

You've invited folks to give their own personal interpretations on some nebulous 'suppose this' situation. While their answers may be correct interpretations for the law in their locale, what will actually be applied is the law in your state. Go read that and see if you can understand it well enough to be comfortable with actually carrying a gun.

 

[Doghandler]

Since I've been invited to witness this hypothetical scenario, I'll pull mine and hold the BG back while you scurry away.

You owe me, Mr. Bullet!

 

[Fred Fuller]

Any fistfight someone who is carrying a concealed firearm gets into is a gunfight- because they brought a gun. Anyone who gets into a tussle with a person who's carrying is likely to discover the concealed firearm, and the usual reaction to that discovery is for the assailant to try and gain control of the weapon.

Then you have the problem in some jurisdictions with what is often defined as "mutual combat," which generally rules out a legal determination of self defense for the affray in question.

In short, you don't want to fight- it isn't a question of 'have to fight' unless you are physically assaulted without warning. Even if that is the case, there might well be other options (like pepper spray) before going to guns. It's best to explore the options and prepare to use one or more before it's needed. There's an old saying- when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. It's best not to be so gun-centric that drawing is the only default reaction to any threat of trouble.

fwiw,

lpl

 

[Losov]

I always think back to the interview with Madonna's security guard who shot an intruder who was advancing on him. His story was that he feared the intruder would overpower him and take his weapon, and he therefore feared for his life. Works for me.

 

[ryanrichmond]

Sometimes just pulling the gun is enough to thwart an attacker from advancing so would you pull it, point it, and demand he let you leave?

I understand that you shouldn't pull a gun unless you're sure you want to fire it but I feel this would give the bad guy the option to back down and let you leave. If he advances I feel like it would be safe to say he means you harm and you should fire. Of course this is just my opinion but how does everyone feel about that scenario?

 

[fallout mike]

Yea ryanrichmond, that's what I had in mind. And before everybody starts, yes I know you shouldn't pull a gun unless you are prepared to use it. But in the real world, our perfect scenarios that we read and toy with in our heads don't always work.

 

[heeler]

And on that note on this mornings news is a story from last night of a male high school soccer coach that was caught in a parking lot with another mans wife.
Husband punched him and his head hit the pavement and the soccer coach is now in critical condition.

 

[bikerdoc]

A lot of states have a lot of case law talking about "having met your duty to retreat and/or make peace"

Know you state law and all the case law.

To answer the question, you try to leave, say your sorry, he still initiates the assault....

Be prepared to defend your actions to a grand jury based on law.

Just more food for thought.

 

[1911Tuner]

A disparity of force can exist with only two parties. The fact that anybody is blocking your escape with the intent of forcing you into a physical altercation is called kidnapping and communicating a threat.

If...for instance...you're 50 years old, and outweighed by 40 or 50 pounds by a 25 year-old...a disparity exists. He can cripple or kill you in quick time. In fear of serious harm is as good as in fear of being killed, and a hard beat-down can be fatal weeks or months...even years...after the fact.

As a matter of interest...An old friend of mine...76 years old and in excellent shape for his age...just this week died from a broken rib almost two weeks after he was hurt in a fall.

 

[mcdonl]

I hate martial arts, but I struggled through 2 or 3 classes to get some basics down. Also, the show the Best Defense always has an empty hand segment or a edged weapon segment on the show. I am sure they are available online.

The point is, if we want to CCW than we should be prepared to physically protect ourselves from having that weapon taken by the BG. Not to mention, most "bullies" will back right down when they face resistance.

In the scenarion of an equal match, I would fend off the assailant, make distance and if the BG persisted I would then draw my gun and indicate I have had enough hand to hand combat and wish it to stop.

 

[fallout mike]

Heeler, moral of the story: don't mess with a guys wife!

 

[AirForceShooter]

All depends on what state is being discussed

AFS

 

[heeler]

Fallout Mike I do agree.
But my point is someone punching you can lead to death or serious bodily injury.

 

[mcdonl]

But my point is someone punching you can lead to death or serious bodily injury.

All the more reason for knowing how to "fight". Some simple self defense training will provide you with the skills you need to avoid most of those knock down punches and will allow your Sympathtic Nervous system time to kick in.

 

[mljdeckard]

It's a fine line which you will have to determine at the time.

"He stood in the doorway, and we just looked at each other for a while." -Does not justify deadly force.

"He stood in the doorway, and said if I tried to leave he would kill me." -Justifies deadly force in most states. See the difference? At the time of the event, you must be able to articulate that you were in fear for your life, or of serious bodily injury. "He was standing in the doorway so I shot him" doesn't cut it.

And I don't escalate force. It's deadly force or I walk away. I gave up shoving matches and violent horseplay when I started carrying a gun.

 

[geekWithA.45]

"He stood in the only doorway, blocking my path, and said I would not be allowed to leave until he had applied a modest amount of pain without permanent damage, and only minor bruises."

Well, now THAT's where it gets interesting.

According to canonical teachings, that is Force, which may be met with Force. It's not clear that lethal Force would be authorized.

That being said, it is not my belief that any just law would require us to render our bodies to another for any degree of abuse, or any period of time, however brief, nor would it obligate us to engaging in the risk of equal combat for the exercise of our rightful prerogative of leaving the room.


Would a jury understand that?

Hell if I know.

 

[The Bushmaster]

I'm sorry, but....The last thing a bad guy is going to hear is "Click" as the safety comes off my .45 ACP. At 68, 5' 7" and 145 lbs I'm too old to run and too old to get a whoopin'...

 

[xsquidgator]

It's a fine line which you will have to determine at the time.

"He stood in the doorway, and we just looked at each other for a while." -Does not justify deadly force.

"He stood in the doorway, and said if I tried to leave he would kill me." -Justifies deadly force in most states. See the difference? At the time of the event, you must be able to articulate that you were in fear for your life, or of serious bodily injury. "He was standing in the doorway so I shot him" doesn't cut it.

And I don't escalate force. It's deadly force or I walk away. I gave up shoving matches and violent horseplay when I started carrying a gun.

Not to nitpick, but to kind of think out loud for my own understanding.

I don't agree that your second situation ("He stood in the doorway, and said if I tried to leave he would kill me") necessarily justifies deadly force, either. We all agree that deadly force may be used in self-defense to prevent death or grave bodily injury. This situation doesn't rise to that level, not yet, anyway. In order to be able to justify using deadly force such as your pistol, you must be able to explain why the guy in the doorway had the ability, the opportunity, and intended to put you in jeopardy (AOJ for ability, opportunity, and jeopardy). Him saying that in a menacing way (in such a way a reasonable person, ie a juror, would not think he was joking) meets the jeopardy requirement. But what about ability and opportunity? That's where you need to explain what kind of a weapon, or disparity of force, he threatened to use against you. If he's within 21 feet or so of you, then he has the opportunity to present a grave threat even with his bare hands or with a contact weapon. So jeopardy and opportunity could be present.

Ability though? What is his weapon? How did you know he had one? It's ok if he told you he had something in his pocket, that counts. Just an unspecified unease with his appearance or manner though doesn't necessarily cut it though, when it comes to explaining to the police and the prosecutor charging you with manslaughter what kind of deadly threat the guy in the doorway was. He could be unarmed and still have the ability to be a deadly threat, if somehow you knew at the time that he was an ex-commando or bare-handed killer of men. But unless you can explain that, or show that he outweighed you significantly and maybe you have a signigicant medical disability issue, you will have a difficult time claiming disparity of force one on one versus the guy in the doorway talking crap. If you want to have a hope of not getting mangled by our own criminal justice system, you need to be able to explain this AOJ thing in your situation in terms that someone who wasn't there can comprehend.

(Plug for a training class) I would not have been able to explain that until after I took one of Massad Ayoob's 40 hour classes, though. I'd heard AOJ mentioned once or twice in other classes, but it took me some more advanced CCW class training before I could apply it somewhat.

 

[BLB68]

I think the core of this issue is the question of who do you surround yourself with? Don't hang out around low lives and the issue pretty much solves itself.

As Mr. Lapin pointed out, this type of situation is almost always going to be ruled a mutual affray. If the violence escalates from smack talking, then you don't engage in the talk and you remove yourself from the area. If you're followed, or the other person attempts to impede your efforts to remove yourself from the area, then it's moving away from being a mutual affray. If you draw a firearm in a mutual affray, be prepared to lose the right to carry it in short order.