Draw your weapon to fire or to scare away?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ummm - All

There is this little tiny thing called situational awareness

Which allows you to change your decision path from

Split second to split second if and as so needed.

Highly regarded in survival circles in general.

That being said, I would never pull a gun without

The full and absolute intent of using it.

Gosh dang, situational awareness

Rears its wicked little head "oncet agin".

isher
 
I know it is illegal to draw a gun if you don't feel your life is in danger where I live. Can you name ANY state that allows it?
IIRC, under certain circumstances Texas allows the use of deadly force to protect property at night. But I don't think any other state has a similar law.
 
Its funny but I am not aware of a single law that says a weapon must be pointed at a human target immediately upon having been drawn.
This discussion has gone that way. Does the phrase low ready come to mind.

I know it is illegal to draw a gun if you don't feel your life is in danger where I live. Can you name ANY state that allows it?

I think you should rephrase that statement, simply drawing a gun is not illegal in most places.
Pointing a gun at someone, discharging within city limits those are illegal.
 
Oh man -

(expletive deleted)

The other night I woke up with a lot of weird

Crashing and banging going on outside by the garage.

So I pull on jeans and shoes and shirt, grab shotgun and flashlight

And head out to see what is going on.

Well, it was a herd of raccoons in the garbage can

And they had done a number.

No, I did not shoot them.

I don't see any problem with being armed when

Faced with an unknown, and potentially dangerous situation,

Whether it be CCW on the street or raccoons in the night.


isher
 
Low ready is still a threat.

Look.

If you draw a gun, not being committed to use it, you will be standing there with a gun in your hand trying to decide what to do. When I have a gun in my hand, I'm not wasting any brain energy thinking of clever comebacks, trying to read the guy's eyes, waiting for the other guy to make a move. HIS brain is working overtime too. If he (or THEY) is armed, you have just given him a break, where he might not have had time to make up his mind, now he does. Combat is dangerous enough when you fight as hard and fast as you can to live. Now you are adding pauses and second thoughts to the process. You have just become the guy who stands there talking to the bad guy not knowing whether to shoot, put the gun away, or hope that the police get there before your arm gets too tired.

Deadly force is a yes or no decision. The switch has two positions. There is no MAYBE position on the switch. I practice drills to draw my gun and fight as hard and fast as I can to completely destroy what is threatening me. There is no yellow light. I don't practice to draw and......wait to see what happens. There is not a reputable instructor in this nation who will teach you to draw and wait.

I'm belaboring this because it's this important. If I hated you guys I would ignore you. This can get you killed or prosecuted. When the gun clears leather, negotiations are over. All of the legal repercussions are in play regardless of whether or not you shoot. SOMEONE is going to jail. It is a bad idea to pretend that you can just draw, change your mind, and put it back. That's NOT how it works.
 
We are like dogs chasing out tail and put words and assumptions in our posts.
I have never in any posts said that I didn't understand deadly force, I am only stating that my threshold is different than yours and we are playing with some BS scenario that has obviously printed different pictures in our minds.
In any drill there are many outcomes none totally correct or totally wrong. You are belaboring this out of human nature and some of us continue to feed the cycle.
I predict this thread will not see the sunrise so I will continue to be fascinated and amused but can say no more.
Merry Christmas
 
I haven't read the entire thread, so maybe this has been covered, but...

Suppose your back is literally against a wall (Or you otherwise have way to retreat). What if someone, say, 20 yards in front of you and closing, demonstrates a clear desire to hurt or kill you you, and they're holding up a bat/machete with obvious intent to use it?

Are people here saying you can't draw a gun and give him a second to stand down?

I'm certainly not saying that. All I'm arguing is that a weapon should not be drawn form concealment unless you have a reasonable fear that loss of human life is imminent.

I think someone coming at you with a bat/machete would qualify. A reasonable person would fear for their life in that situation. They would be justified in drawing, and firing if necessary.

As for drawing and then giving the bad guy a second or two to change his mind in the hopes that you don't actually have to shoot him...that depends on the situation. Obviously it's best to avoid shooting someone if at all possible.

I guess the point is you shouldn't draw a gun just to scare someone away. You should only draw a weapon if you're prepared to use it and in a situation that calls for deadly force.

Oh man -

(expletive deleted)

The other night I woke up with a lot of weird

Crashing and banging going on outside by the garage.

So I pull on jeans and shoes and shirt, grab shotgun and flashlight

And head out to see what is going on.

Well, it was a herd of raccoons in the garbage can

And they had done a number.

No, I did not shoot them.

I don't see any problem with being armed when

Faced with an unknown, and potentially dangerous situation,

Whether it be CCW on the street or raccoons in the night.


isher

That's an entirely different scenario. Investigating a noise most likely caused by an animal on your property is very different from drawing on a group of teenagers who are following you down the street.

First and foremost, you don't need to have a reasonable fear for your life to assault an animal with a deadly weapon in most states.

Secondly, you're using a scenario where you went outside visibly armed with a shotgun and a flashlight to investigate an unknown possible threat. That's very different from the scenario where someone drew a weapon from concealment in public at a perceived threat (4 teens), where the perceived threat was most likely not a threat at all.

Third, depending upon where you live it may be illegal to go outside with a loaded shotgun and investigate a strange sound.

Apples and oranges. I have a feeling you already knew that.

For an additional two cents... when discussing raccoons the proper terms are nursery or gaze, not herd. ;)
 
Last edited:
Gettin' there -

And if the raccoons happened to be the proverbial

Four teenagers?

Then what?

A noise is a noise.

Now, because I live well out of town, the city cops

Would turn it over to the Staters, and

It would be a half hour minimum

Before they showed up.

Not dissin', just sayin'.


isher
 
Awareness....

I have gotten a lot of useful information from this site and this group as I have researched many different subjects in the process of selecting a handgun, learning the philosophy, and getting training in proper usage. This thread finally drove me to register...

There were many posts made on this subject by people that I am glad do not live anywhere near me! Situational Awareness was mentioned once or twice.
If a person can not even make a reasoned statement when the facts are laid out in plain english and there is no pressure, how can I expect them to make a good call in 1.5 seconds when they feel their life is in danger!

The OP clearly stated that he was quoting from another thread:
"After reading the thread with stories of people who have had to draw or "brandish" their weapon to prevent something bad.... Let me quote 1 of the stories to make my point more clear.
So - points for those that ragged on the OP for ANYTHING.

Then people were saying that some kids behind you, and others on the other side of the street isn't enough of a threat:
...noticed that the teens did not go into the store but rather two were trailing us about 40 yards back and the other two had crossed the road and were opposite us, walking fast to pass us.
Hmm, maybe they were right... Oh! Wait! Look at the next sentence:
When they got about 50 yards ahead, they crossed and we were in between the two pairs. The ones in front slowing down while the two behind picked up the pace.

Maybe getting a little scarier?
Now, the OOP states that the ones in front were slowing down, which tells me that he walked far enough to be able to notice the change in relative distance, which tells me that they were now quite a bit closer than 50 yards.
At this point I would be in Condition Red...

Now as to the points of leaving the situation. I agree, I would have wanted to take evasive action and put the ball in their court if indeed they were a threat, and to see if they were a threat.

But...
...visiting friends...night...walk to the corner store that was about half a mile down the road...subdivision near a fairly well travelled road...We crossed an intersection...
To paraphrase: They were in an area they weren't familiar with, at night, walking quite a ways along a road that had quite a bit of traffic on it, maybe in clumps. We have no way of knowing what was along the sidewalk, but I would picture subdivision, which would mean fences and houses and who knows what else. Would there be a good escape away from the road? I would doubt it, but who knows?
Some have said "shoulda crossed the road", I agree, and I hope I would think of that if I were there, but the clue that it was a fairly well traveled road, and they crossed at the intersection tells me that likely they had traffic to deal with. The punks crossed ahead of them, but they may have used another light, or just run across in a traffic break.

So, let's assume, based on the info clearly provided that they are on a sidewalk with traffic preventing safe crossing with houses on the other side, a group of teens using very plain tactics to box them in and then close the box, that a reasonable person would have felt threatened by.

In my training I was taught an acronym: CYA
It stands for : Can You Articulate?
i.e. Why did you do what you did?

If I did what he had done, and then it turned out that it was the cops kid and friends, and they had run off to tell some secrets they didn't want the other 2 hearing, I would explain the situation as above, and then tell the officer that "I had felt threatened, and realized I did not have a round in the chamber. I then pulled the weapon out in a discreet manner, and chambered a round in case the weapon was needed. In the process, one of the kids up front looked back and saw it and then all 4 took off. I never pointed it at anyone, I simply took the steps I felt were necessary to protect my wife and myself."

Was it illegal? Depends on the law of that state.
Was it the best thing to do? Only a person in that situation with that training level could say.
Should the gun have had a round in the chamber? I won't comment, but we all know the answer! (they differ, but we all have one! ;)

Were some of the replies to this thread something that makes me feel good about the CCW population of this country? Not so much...

Situational Awareness - Condition Yellow applies to being aware of facts in a post as well as what happens on the street. Oh, and to the folks that based posts off of other incorrect posts, I was aware of this! :neener:

I am going to put my other comments in a different post...
 
Levels of Force

I can't claim as many years of experience as many of you, and I haven't had as much training as many of you, but I can comment on what one training school drills into us, and since this school probably trains more CCW holders than any single other school, I think it is pertinent.

Escalation of Force...
You only use the level of force required to stop the threat.

Is drawing a firearm from concealment and holding it at low-ready "force"?
In most places, yes.
Is it enough to stop many threats?
As many stories in this thread, and other threads on this site have stated, sometimes it is.

Therefore, if you go from no threat, to drawing and pulling the trigger on center mass, you have skipped a level of force that could be argued to have been the level necessary. = Murder...
Is it the correct thing to do in some circumstances, yes! But those that say the only time they will draw is if they are going to shoot, they are limiting the usefulness of their weapon, and increasing the danger to themselves, and the likely hood of killing another human being.

Here is what ~20,000+ people a year are being taught:
Gun holstered/concealed. Possible threat approaching. Hands raised above beltline, palms out, command shouted to stop, or do not come any closer. --
--Possible threat continues approaching. Off-hand drops to bottom of sternum, gun hand hooks concealment, pulls it out of the way, secure grip on weapon, draw, bring to low ready (round in chamber, safety off, finger on the frame - go glocks and xd's!), shout command to stop or I'll shoot! --
--Threat continues approaching. At this point you have decided that if the person does not stop, you will fire when the shot is safe (checking downrange, etc). You bring the weapon to bear on the center mass, focus on the front sight, and place 2 controlled shots. If the person is still a threat, then you place a single round to the head. If the person is still a threat, either you need to upgrade your caliber, work on your aim, or grab Ye Holy Hand Grenade! Or take additional shots to stop the threat.
Scan and move after each set of shots of course.

That is how the training goes. Why? You can skip steps a lot easier than you can add them under stress.

If the guy is walking up and pointing a gun at you, well, you can skip some levels of force.
If the guy is just brandishing a gun, so you have reasonable threat to your life, would a flashing draw to an intimidating low-ready stance combined with verbal commands possibly get his attention and make him realize that maybe he doesn't want to mess with you? If not, you are a fraction of a second away from acquiring center mass and firing.
Those people that train that if they draw, they bring it up and fire are preparing their muscle memory to pull the trigger anytime the weapon is drawn. That is how innocent people and loved ones get shot.

The training needs to be in stages or levels of force, with each step trained based on the force encountered.

Ever been through a shoot-house with mixed hostages and bad guys? You come into a room, and you see a target, you have the weapon pointed at it with your finger on the trigger, and you have to decide whether it is a threat or your sister's BF (or both! ;)
If you trained the way some espoused, they would be shot.
At the school, they pull a fast one. They use some of the same photo targets in the shoot house as they used on the range, but sometimes they don't have a weapon. So you actually have to think (scary word) before you pull the trigger.

Cooper's Rules:
1. Treat all guns as if they are loaded.
2. Never let the muzzle of a gun point at anything you are not willing to destroy.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are aligned with the target.
4. Know your target and what is beyond your target.
+
(5). Always know where your gun is.

He didn't say anything about not drawing unless you are going to fire.

I was trained not to draw (or expose or otherwise bring into play) my weapon unless I was in a situation where I was willing and ready to use it. That is a state of mind. They have pushed past the line in the sand you set as maximum allowable threat level without escalating.
I see 4 teens closing in on me in what appears to be an planned attempt to box me in without me noticing. They are getting close enough that I feel they pose a potential threat. There are no usable escape routes. Fence on one side, road with traffic on the other side.
What might I do, with the level of training I have, and my knowledge of the legal ramifications at stake?
Stop! It moves me away from one group since they are still walking away, and throws their balance off, puts me back in control.
By watching the reaction of the rear group, I may be able to tell if they are BG's. If I am still not sure, before they get too close, I tell them not to come any closer. If they continue, then I escalate my response.
If when I stop, the front group stops or begins coming closer, well, it's on, in which case I would begin moving back up the sidewalk to further throw them off, and order the rear group to stop and get back.

No, there isn't any grey area. Deadly force is the only force I use. If deadly force is not justified, I don't pull. Deadly force is complicated enough without throwing in all kinds of 'what ifs' about shoving, grabbing, and holding. For me, force has one color, one standard. I don't split it up into degrees.
This (and others that said similar things) scares me.
Deadly force being justified is a yes/no equation. Deadly force being needed isn't.
If you felt a threat, and drew to protect your life, but you were able to stop the threat without using deadly force, just the threat thereof, do you think that may be taken into consideration when they are deciding what charges to press?

There were comments made about firing as many shots as quickly as possible to make sure the threat was stopped. That is a real good way to get charged with excessive force. Now, if you are the point and shoot type, you might need that theory to make sure some rounds hit the target. If you know how to aim though, you don't need to throw that much lead!

CYA- Can You Articulate why you did what you did. Can you back it up that you followed standard training?

There are many comments that seem to imply that they think of the gun as the only means of defending themselves.
In the example of meeting the guy in the dark alley, what can you do other than shoot him or get shot?
Umm, take cover in a doorway, step behind a crate (dark alleys always have crates stacked in them) and while you are behind cover but watching him, if you feel he is a major threat, you might even be able to draw your weapon and have it ready. Then simply wait for him to walk past. If he doesn't, then you can escalate, but you gained the upper hand by being aware, and preparing.
If he smiles, nods and says hello as he walks past, then you can continue on your way with both of you alive and well.

Situational Awareness combined with being able to control the tactical situation are the key's here.
It's not just point and shoot.

And anybody that only thinks and trains the point and shoot part is a danger.
That's like somebody that only learns to use the gas and the brake. You wouldn't let them drive a car...
 
Impureclient:
Thank you for the welcome! :)

I seem to be making up for my extended lurking and not posting... ;)
That, and the stuff that put a burr under my saddle!
Just be glad you can't reply inline to each post, or I might have!


-----------------------------
Survival is what you do in the city, Living is what I do in the wilderness!
 
What might I do, with the level of training I have, and my knowledge of the legal ramifications at stake?
Stop! It moves me away from one group since they are still walking away, and throws their balance off, puts me back in control.
By watching the reaction of the rear group, I may be able to tell if they are BG's. If I am still not sure, before they get too close, I tell them not to come any closer. If they continue, then I escalate my response.
If when I stop, the front group stops or begins coming closer, well, it's on, in which case I would begin moving back up the sidewalk to further throw them off, and order the rear group to stop and get back.

Sounds pretty good at first glance, except for the fact that the ones in the back have a legal right to go where they please on a public sidewalk, and no one else has the right to order them to stop, "potential" threat or worrisome appearance not withstanding.

I think I'd probably cross the street, or perhaps, if there's a way up to a house on my side, go that way.

If they then follow, their intention, or at least the fact that it is indeed you that they are after, becomes a lot more clear.

Comment?
 
If my weapon is ever drawn it will immediately be fired OR quickly re accessed in a slow moving situation as the situation may have changed if the threat has retreated before i fired.
A slowly developing situation may allow time to re access once drawn,but a fast happening attack require immediate trigger response.
If i fire its shoot to kill as thats the most effective way to stop a threat.
Warning shots will get you killed imo.

I may sound cold blooded,but i am far from that.I hope to never hurt another human being as long as i live.
Im one of those black or white type people,there is no grey areas.
 
Deadly force being justified is a yes/no equation. Deadly force being needed isn't.
Not sure I understand what you are trying to say. Deadly force is justified only when it is immediately necessary.

So, if it immediately necessary, it is justified, and if it is not necessary, it is not justified.

Immediately necessary, I think, brings in the concept of A, O, and J, and also means that there is no other alternative.

?
 
I wonder if it might be worthwhile to look at this a little differently.

You and an associate are walking along, and you speed up with the intention of regrouping with friends who have separated to have a private conversation. There are two people in front of you. One draws a pistol and chambers a round.

Is he an immediate threat? Are you in imminent danger? He has a gun; contact distance is not an issue. Would you be justified in shooting him before he can shoot you?

or...

You are walking along, and you slow down to allow friends to rejoin you.. Someone behind you draws a gun and chambers a round.

Is he an immediate threat? Are you in imminent danger? He has a gun; contact distance is not an issue. Would you be justified in shooting him before he can shoot you?

Many people on these treads seem to identify with the guy with the gun and therefore believe that he is the "good guy."

Witnesses, investigators, the charging authority, the DA, and perhaps the jury will not automatically see it that way.

The question was one of "brandishing", though assault should have been at least considered. How about possibly giving up any chance of having a jury instruction to consider self defense, had things gone bad? How about getting shot--perhaps in self defense?

Worth thinking about?

Suppose the story had been relayed from the point of view of one of the other people in the story. Would you have responded differently?
 
Deadly force is justified only when it is immediately necessary.
True. Thing is, drawing is not deadly force.

Is he an immediate threat? Are you in imminent danger? He has a gun; contact distance is not an issue. Would you be justified in shooting him before he can shoot you?
No, because he kept it pointing at the ground. You'd be justified in drawing, and yes, there's potential for that situation to go very bad.
 
Thing is, drawing is not deadly force.
True, but that wasn't the question.

No, [you would not be justified in shooting him before he can shoot you] because he kept it pointing at the ground.
So, you contend that if someone pulls a gun, you may not shoot until he actually has you in his sights? Interesting....

Let's see--if he has a contact weapon and is close to you, you may assume that he has the ability and the opportunity to cause you great bodily harm, and if he moves at you, you may assume that you are in jeopardy. If you have no other recourse, you may then use deadly force to defend yourself.

But you think that if he pulls a gun and chambers a round, and he clearly has both the ability and the opportunity to kill you, you cannot assume that you are in jeopardy--that he intends to shoot you--until he actually has the gun leveled at you?

What is your basis for that conclusion?

Remember, this isn't happening at the shooting range. From the point of view of the person who is not drawing the gun, and perhaps from the point of view of any witnesses who happen to notice what is going on, the man drawing the gun on an apparently unarmed man would have no other apparent reason to draw the gun and to chamber the round except to shoot that man, or perhaps to threaten him with deadly force for the purpose of robbing him or kidnapping him. Either way he would be justified in firing.

Right?

If the is then somehow able to draw from concealment and then fire quickly enough, the gun on the ground would serve his self-defense case rather well, I should think.
 
See Five Rules for Concealed Carry
While some of the details relative to exposing a gun vary according to jurisdiction, that link sets forth the answer to the original question rather clearly, I think.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top