Draw your weapon to fire or to scare away?

[tmoore912]

X-Rap,
I would have to agree.

 

[Kleanbore]

I still can't believe that some seem to feel the need to have the BG right on top of them before they feel the right to prepare for their defence.

Read this (all of it, too long to post):

http://www.useofforce.us/

Here are two relevant excerpts:

Although a man with a gun is considered dangerous at any reasonable distance, a man with a knife standing 300 feet away is not, simply because he cannot stab you from that far away. Yet there is another factor, as well. If he were standing mere yards away, he still probably couldn’t reach you with his knife, but because it would only take him moments to approach you and change that, he would still be considered dangerous. A common police standard is to assume that a knife-wielding assailant is capable of covering 21 feet and striking with the blade in 1.5 seconds. Mull on that time span.

That one raises the question of why the OP was carrying with an empty chamber to start with.

Of course there were several folks....

The most subjective factor of the AOJP analysis is the jeopardy requirement, sometimes called “imminent jeopardy.” This criterion requires that, in your specific situation, a “reasonable and prudent” person would have believed himself to be in immediate danger [Keep in mind that he will have to be able to articulate why he so believed, and others may have to decide whether his belief was reasonable].

In other words, jeopardy is what distinguishes between a potentially dangerous situation and one that is actually dangerous. Hundreds of times every day, you walk by people who could punch or stab or shoot you. The reason you aren’t “defending” yourself against them is because you have no reason to think that they are actually about to attack you. (Why would they?)

[emphasis added]

And then go back and read the discussions on when a civilian may exhibit a firearm.

The example of the man and wife is a clear situation if it happened as presented.

So, some teens worried the OP. I suggest that third persons observing might offer the opinion that no threat was demonstrated. That could have sealed the OP's fate with the charging authority and possibly the jury, had one of those teens reported the incident.

Why would you want to wait until they closed to dangerous distance when way out numbered in what was obviously unusual behavior.

Read the above excerpts. If people drew on everyone who behaved unusually, an awful lot of people would be locked up for assault, and we would quickly lose the right to carry.

 

[Creature]

My dad as well as 20 years in the military drilled one thing into my brain when it comes to weapons. If you draw your weapon it is with the intention of destroying a perceived threat, or whatever is in front of your sight picture.

That may be what your dad taught you, but that is not what the military taught your dad.

 

[wishin]

What the Army taught years ago, and probably still today, is don't point a gun at anyone unless you're prepared to shoot!

 

[Creature]

What the Army taught years ago, and probably still today, is don't point a gun at anyone unless you're prepared to shoot!

That says nothing about what the Army, or any other branch of service, teaches about when to unholster a sidearm.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

By various private surveys, there are 764,000 to 3.6 million defensive gun uses per year. The government surveys are either 108,000 (NCVS) or 23 million (NSPOF).

Projections from shooting statistics by various researchers show 59,000 (Southwick), to 80,000 to 160,000 (Kleck) defensive gun uses with shots fired.

Do the math. Most DGUs are scare-offs.

A lot of people "brandish" defensively and do not shoot. For example, I know a couple who chased off a home invader and who detained a car burglar for arrest. We have also recently had two burglars in seperate incidents detained at gun point for arrest. The only problem case we have had is where a man shot a fleeing burglar.

If a reasonable person would be in fear of death or greivous bodily harm (and I can think of no better example than facing a home invader), threatening or warning the potential use of deadly force to scare away has not been a problem.

This is not just waving a gun around and expecting the bad guy to disappear like it was a magic wand: every case I know about or have read and followed up on, the brandishment was a serious threat to use lethal force if necessary, projected with credibility.

 

[wishin]

That says nothing about what the Army, or any other branch of service, teaches about when to unholster a sidearm.

My point exactly!

 

[B yond]

If a reasonable person would be in fear of death or greivous bodily harm (and I can think of no better example than facing a home invader), threatening or warning the potential use of deadly force to scare away has not been a problem.

OK, so is it reasonable to be in fear of death or greivous bodily harm if you're walking down the street with your GF and there happen to be two teens walking the same direction across the street and two more walking behind you?

The example of the man and wife is a clear situation if it happened as presented. Why would you want to wait until they closed to dangerous distance when way out numbered in what was obviously unusual behavior.

Unusual behavior is something to be noted. Threatening behavior is something to be acted upon. Sure, the teens' actions appeared to be unusual from the POV of the main character, but that doesn't make them aggressive or threatening.

Sharing the street with a group of teens that you're uncomfortable with is a good reason to be more alert and more vigilant. A good course of action is to clear your hands in case it becomes clear that you are going to need to defend yourself. Drawing your gun because your'e afraid you are about to be in a situation where drawing your gun would be warranted is jumping the gun.

I just don't think a reasonable person would fear for his or her life in this particular situation at the point that the main character chose to draw his weapon. I don't think there was any clear aggression from these teens, and I think the main character probably over-reacted and scared the heck out of some kids.

Those kids probably ran home and told their parents about some bad man with a gun scaring people on the street. That's not how we get people to vote pro-gun.

 

[sharkman]

In most states that is a Class B Felony of Reckless Endangerment. You are only permitted to exhibit equal force to offset force against you for self defense. Walking away is always the best solution in any confrontation. The quicker the better! You take that gun out and you are going to jail, that's a guarantee for this former LEO and DOJ Agent. It's also a good way to get shot yourself as well. Walk Away, never up the anti!

Does that include Tackleberry's that brandish their gun in a snowball fight, or does the law apply to everyone but LEO's?

 

[B yond]

Does that include Tackleberry's that brandish their gun in a snowball fight, or does the law apply to everyone but LEO's?

Depending upon where the main character resides, his action may not have been illegal.

As for the officer in the snowball fight, I think some less lethal means of crowd control would have probably been a better choice, given the potential repercussions of his actions and their affects on his career.

That vid would have been much more entertaining if he came out of his Hummer with a PepperBall gun blazing...

 

[Cosmoline]

Don't draw to frighting. BUT if when you draw the threat drops his firearm and flees, then you no longer have any need or justification to shoot.

 

[sharkman]

I believe that you are correct, legally and morally. If your assailant is big enough then that disparity in size and communication of a threat justifies you using whatever force is necesary to stop the threat. You need to be able to articulate your reasoning ie he was huge, said he was going to kill me etc...

 

[sharkman]

Force on force, he shoulda thrown snowballs back at them, maybe an ice ball!

 

[skwab]

IMO, when a firearm is introduced into a scenario everything changes. A firearm should not be used to fortify ones argument, for deterrence, to cover a retreat, for firing a warning shot. It should not be drawn unless ready to use in the act of self defense. Because if you're not ready, or not willing to use it, it's out there - the rules have changed. It can now be taken from you, or the BG now knows what you have and can up the anty if they have that option. The element of surprise is gone.

The example the OP gave, the individual was responding to a perceived threat, not a real one. Sure he may have been uncomfortable, but that's not reason enough to draw a weapon. What if one of those "teens" was an off duty, fresh from the academy pup hanging out with one of his friends. He sees some guy pull a gun out without provocation. What is his response going to be? Who's going to jail if they survive the encounter?

Point is, bringing a firearm into a situation should never be taken lightly. It should only be done when lethal force is required, not perceived, and should only be done when all options have been exhausted.

 

[X-Rap]

What the Army taught years ago, and probably still today, is don't point a gun at anyone unless you're prepared to shoot!

They also point their guns at many thousands more people than they never shoot, (not my recommendation to go around pointing a weapon at folks) only pointing out that the presence as well as the will to use it are serious and well documented deterrents.

Perhaps I need to go and reread the man and his wife but I will simply state that I can't say I would have acted differently had I been in a situation of a group obviously splitting and attempting to encircle and cut me off. That doesn't mean I have my gun up and on target but if we are talking 2 groups at street width distance (my streets are 35-40') and it is in a unpopulated vacant area then I would have it in hand and begin issuing commands of stay back and I am armed until they have backed off and the threat diminished. When the Deputy comes I will gladly give my account and take whats coming. If they didn't heed my warnings then the gun would go on target and if still pressed the only possible result would be to fire in my and my wife's defence until the treat withdrew.
As I stated before the open deserted street is different than the mall or busy street and the same tactics wouldn't apply

 

[wishin]

What the Army taught years ago, and probably still today, is don't point a gun at anyone unless you're prepared to shoot!

 

[Kleanbore]

Does that include Tackleberry's that brandish their gun in a snowball fight, or does the law apply to everyone but LEO's?

Where I live, the prohibition of exhibiting a firearm in a threatening manner does not apply to law enforcement officers. That's altogether proper--they are sworn to uphold the law; civilians are permitted only to defend themselves or in some jurisdictions, third parties, when immediately necessary and as a last resort.

When a mass demonstration is blocking public thoroughfares, police action is quite appropriate. When demonstrators throw objects of any kind at police officers, they are putting themselves at risk. Those people are lucky they were not taken into custody.

No one was throwing anything at the OP, however. Nor, according to the post, were they presenting any other kind of immediate threat.

 

[03Shadowbob]

Force on force, he shoulda thrown snowballs back at them, maybe an ice ball!

Sharkman,
Being a LEO, he was able to respond with force above what he was attacked with.

 

[Impureclient]

Are we all reading the same story here?
Abridged version with key notes bolded: A group of teens pull into a parking lot of a store and do not go in. Rather they break up into two groups and one drops behind a couple while the other speeds ahead out to do exactly what?
The group in back then speeds up and one in front slows down closing in on the targeted party in the middle. A guy in front looks back to see his target is armed. Then the teens all run off as if somehow they telepatically sensed the couple had a gun.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out in that story something bad was about to go down. Try to imagine you were there. Maybe even replace the woman with a small child, your own if you have one.
Could that story have gone any better than how it ended. I mean honestly, how many people who CCW have police called on them after they mistakenly pulled their gun out because they thought there was a threat?
It probably never happens because after the gun is out and spotted/heard by the would be criminal it turns out was a real threat and they high tail out of there of course not calling the police in the end.

Just so were are all clear here this story is not about the OP, it is a story from another thread in here.
Possibly this one http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=472570&page=3 or this one http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=345595
For all the negative comments about how the guy in the story above handled the situation, I encourage the naysayers to read both those entire threads.
You will find that just clearing leather, brandishing, stating you have a gun or any similar situation without actually firing the gun has helped many in here by the stories they tell.
I think we are all clear in here that 99% of the time it is illegal to to "show" your firearm but, try telling that to all those individuals who weren't robbed/killed or did not have to unfortunately kill somebody in defense when the threat was easily neutralized by just the site of a gun.

Maybe somebody should start a thread for stories about the time they drew their gun and did not have to fire and the situation went bad. Something makes me think that thread will never be posted nor will it be full of stories of similar stories.

 

[zignal_zero]

obviously, LE is a different game than SD and i went through the academy a LONG TIME ago. but we were taught a simple phrase to help us understand when we should present our side arm - "when in doubt, whip it out"

 

[mljdeckard]

Impureclient-

The trouble is, it doesn't SAY all of those things in the original story. These things are ASSUMED. Can I imagine situations where something bad was about to happen? Sure. Is this going to be the case MOST OF THE TIME as the scene was described? NO. Whether or not drawing or firing was justified is going to be situation dependent, you will only know if you were there. And based on HOW IT IS DESCRIBED IN THE POST, they were still a long way from being justified.

 

[atomd]

There's some really funny stuff in this thread. My answer is...I don't know. It depends on the situation. For example, during the LA riots a number of shop owners brandished weapons to keep the rioters away from their shops. I'm ok with that. I'm sure many situations are defused without shots being fired. Someone who says that they will fire 100% of the time they draw hasn't thought of everything or been in every situation out there. There's an exception for every plan.

 

[Impureclient]

mljdeckard: Which part did I assume that didn't really happen when I paraphrased? I didn't fluff the story at all. The only part I added was they all some how knew when to run when one guy seen the gun. I'm pretty sure I DESCRIBED HOW IT WAS IN THE POST, I just took all the unimportant details out.

Here's one for you. You're in your car alone at a fast food drive through at night. Car in front of you and back blocking you in. All of a sudden on your passenger door some dude starts yanking on the handle to get in the car and then comes around to the drivers side door. All doors are locked so you are kind of protected.
Do you sit there with your gun in the holster and pray he doesn't get in or pull it out and tap on the glass with it so he can see what he is up against?....
.....Or is this where you wait til he has broken in a window and then pull it out and shoot? With the attitude of some in here, I project that they instead would fire through the window when he first tried the door.

Another situation. You are walking your dog in a very secluded area. Four, no let's make it a little fair for the sake of making this easier, two "gentlemen" are quickly flanking you from left and right off the path you are on. Do you assume they are just two harmless joggers in the woods and decided to get back on the path coincidentally where you happen to be walking? Let's make it even more exciting. Replace yourself with your wife or girlfriend in this scenario. Would you want her yelling out commands to these "gentlemen" like "Do you have a problem" or "I'm not comfortable with your advancing." I'd want my lady drawing at this time and let them figure out for themselves if she wanted them help her walk the dog.

I recall a real creepy one of those stories in the threads where the OP got his example story. A guy was hiking in the woods/mountain on a thin path with his infant son and walked past some nice fellas. One of them commented on how he wanted to do damage of some sort to the baby. The hiker pulled the clothing covering his carry piece back and they just kept any more nice comments to themselves and kept on walking. He hid down the trail after they got some distance apart and waited to see if the were coming back. Luckily he and his son made it out. Should he have just pulled it out and blasted them all or waited til they made their move? He is alive, his son is alive, and those "gentlemen" had their life spared.

It's already been said many times but each situation warrants different actions to be taken. I think the guy in the story the OP posted
made the right decision and I'm sure he thinks the same otherwise he wouldn't have posted it in the first place.

 

[X-Rap]

Dam the most intelligent posts on the thread.

 

[Officers'Wife]

Hi B Yond,

As for the officer in the snowball fight, I think some less lethal means of crowd control would have probably been a better choice, given the potential repercussions of his actions and their affects on his career.

That officer had every reason to fear for his life! For all he knew the crowd could have been using the new 'cop killer' snowballs and acted in kind.