Draw your weapon to fire or to scare away?

[DRZinn]

So, you contend that if someone pulls a gun, you may not shoot until he actually has you in his sights? Interesting....

No, I do not contend that at all. If he draws, chambers a round, and keeps the weapon pointed down, you are justified in drawing as well (you should damn well already have one chambered), and that is all. If he turns toward you, and begins to raise the gun, then you are justified in shooting him. Raising the gun is the equivalent of moving toward you with a knife.

 

[gym]

See post #75, this question and questions that tend to allow individual interpretations of what the question really was or meant, are just an exercise in futility. We all respond to situations differently. What works for one person does not work for another. Questions are good, but beating a dead horse serves no purpose other than trying to convince others that your way is the better way. Perhaps agreeing to disagree is what is best shown here.

 

[Kleanbore]

If he draws, chambers a round, and keeps the weapon pointed down, you are justified in drawing as well (you should damn well already have one chambered), and that is all.

Ya think so? Well, at that point someone is going to shoot someone. Question is who.

The assumption that the first man's presentation of his weapon was justified presumes that one is justified in drawing his gun before he has a justifcation to use deadly force. Well, he does in Texas, and now in Arizona, if he is in fact threatened with unlawful force, whether deadly or not, under some circumstances; in most places, however, he may not present his weapon except in self defense--that is, unless the danger is imminent. The fact that drawing a gun does not in itself comprise the use of deadly force does not mean otherwise; it simply defines the level of criminal liability. Now (and this is for those who somehow think they now need to shoot), if upon one's lawful drawing of his gun, the threat dissipates (say, the other man then drops his gun), he may not at that point use deadly force.

The assumption that the second man may not lawfully defend himself against a man who has drawn a gun presumes that (1) having a man draw, and in this case chamber a round in his presence, does not provide sufficient reason to believe that imminent danger exists (A, O, and P) and (2) that there is an alternative to shooting at that point in time. I find that hard to accept.

I submit that if a man on the street not in uniform, in someone else's proximity, who is not himself in imminent danger, pulls a gun and chambers a round, one can reasonably presume that he is embarking upon the commission of a forcible felony--aggravated assault, murder, armed robbery, or kidnapping. He may not be, of course--he may simply have decided that he would like to have a round in the chamber--but the question is not that, it is what a reasonable person would believe. It's a better idea to chamber that round in private and to keep the gun concealed or, if permitted, in an openly carried holster.

If he turns toward you, and begins to raise the gun, then you are justified in shooting him.

You sure are, but do you dare wait that long? He can probably raise the gun and fire in less than one tenth of a second, maybe less, once he has it in his hand. What's your reaction time?

Raising the gun is the equivalent of moving toward you with a knife.

In what way? It takes nominally a second and a half to get to me with a knife from twenty feet out, for what that's worth. I can draw in that time and fire if necessary---because I practice (empty gun). I don't think that I, or anyone else for that matter, would have a snowball's chance in Phoenix in the summer of being able to react to someone who starts raising his drawn gun first and to shoot him before he shoots me.

Do you really think that anyone has to, or would, wait until a guy who has just drawn and chambered a round raises his gun at him before defending himself? To me, that idea (idea--don't take that personally) is just as preposterous as the fictional scenes of two men facing each other with hands held above holstered revolvers in the movies, with the guy who "drew first" being rightfully beaten to the draw by the faster man, who only starts reacting to the situation when the first man, for whom reaction time is not an issue, starts his draw.

By the way, if you are one of men who is in front, the man with the gun is already facing you.

 

[ke6gwf]

True, but that wasn't the question.

So, you contend that if someone pulls a gun, you may not shoot until he actually has you in his sights? Interesting....

No, you can not shoot until they become a clear and immediate threat to your life. (A guy with a knife stating he is going to kill you, and walking towards you, but still 30 feet away may be a clear threat, but not yet immediate. Same with the gun drawn but not pointed at you, and no obvious intent) For those of you that have seen the story of the jerk that pulled his gun because some snowballs got thrown at his Hummer during a blizzard in DC, if I had been standing on that sidewalk, I would not have had reason to fire. Now if he had started raising the gun, that might have changed.

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?

There are different levels of threat between having a gun pointed at the ground, and actually having it pointed at you.
If he already has the gun out and pointed at the ground, if he intends to kill you, why is the gun pointed at the ground, and not at you with the trigger being pulled?
You have to show more than Ability and Opportunity, you also have to show Intent. You can not assume Intent.

In the scenario that started this, no the person walking 20-50 yards in front would not have reasonable cause.
Why not? There are multiple other people on the sidewalk, there are buildings or houses along the side (assumed), and the person with the gun is walking along with a female, and was walking up the side walk BEFORE you approached them. There are many reasons they could have a gun which have nothing to do with you, and at that distance in the dark, you would have a hard time convincing a jury that they were focused on you. They could be a bounty hunter getting ready to go to a house, or any other options.
If that was Reasonable Cause, then I could have shot that DC dick as soon as he looked my direction with a gun out, because he was a threat to my life.
With the contact weapon, the distance is close, and the intent being directed at you can be argued. Besides, if you know how good a shot most people are in those conditions, you can't truly claim fear for your life....

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?

Wrong
Due to the above mentioned multiple other possible reasons for the gun, the distance, the overall situation and lack of proof it was directed at you.
Also as you your self just said "If you have no other recourse, you may then use deadly force to defend yourself." What other recourse would he have? Run, hide, call for help, present to low ready and order the other person to drop the gun. Shooting someone that you think might be a threat to you is not the only recourse in that situation!

Oh, and the punk in front couldn't take the shot anyway.
There are bystanders further down the sidewalk behind the intended target. A miss, or over-penetration could kill an innocent person. That forces a properly trained and moral person to use other options than point-and-shoot.

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.

A gun 30 yards away, that was never pointed at you, and never indicated as being intended for you... = Murder

I come back to CYA - Can You Articulate
"Umm, I saw this guy walking along with his wife, and I saw him pull a gun out, and I felt my life was in danger, so I quick-drawed and blasted his arse away" Could you tell what kind of gun it was? Paintball, airsoft, glock? "Umm, no, it was too far away to tell, and with it being dark and all. But I could tell it was a gun!" Where was it pointed? "Umm, at the ground by the guys feet" Did he indicate he was going to use it on you? "Umm, he looked at me" was he looking only at you? "Umm, no, he was looking all around him, and at the guys walking behind him"
Although I am having fun imagining the punks accent as I write that, you get the idea... Even if I did that without bias, Dark, considerable distance, gun pointed at ground, multiple other possible reasons around, no directed intent,
bystanders, and no other means to leave tried, it still wouldn't look good.

I sure hope I am never on a street with you. Who knows, I might see somebody getting attacked 20 yards from you, and pull my weapon to intervene, and get blown away by you because you feel that I might at some point point the gun at you and become a threat.

Again, there are other options.
If the guy with his wife should have taken evasive action, the punk up the sidewalk should as well. Especially since he doesn't have the body of evidence of the strange actions that appear to be threatening. All he has is somebody drawing a weapon and pointing it to the ground quite a distance away, with multiple other people around.
This is not a point and shoot world! This is not a war zone! We will get there soon enough...

 

[ke6gwf]

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.

If you are shooting to kill, you will get a murder charge, which is why the better instructors say to "shoot to stop". It may end up being the same thing, but the intent and wording are very important when comes to the legal end of things.

Oh, and if a person can retreat in the amount of time it takes you to draw, you might want to work on your draw from concealment...
The school I attend has new shooters (some never have even handled a gun before the class) drawing from concealment, and putting 2 controlled rounds in center mass from 7 yards in 1.5 seconds or less by the end of the first class.

But at the same time, they make the call before they actually press the trigger whether it is still a proper shot, since they have been drilled the whole class in the multiple levels of force.

I do agree with you on the waste of good lead with warnings shots, in most situations anyway!

 

[ke6gwf]

<snip>
The assumption that the second man may not lawfully defend himself against a man who has drawn a gun presumes that (1) having a man draw, and in this case chamber a round in his presence, does not provide sufficient reason to believe that imminent danger exists (A, O, and P) and (2) that there is an alternative to shooting at that point in time. I find that hard to accept.

The distance and proof that the intent was directed at you would be key points there. If it was clear you were his target, then things change, but the OOP was not in that situation

I submit that if a man on the street not in uniform, in someone else's proximity, who is not himself in imminent danger, pulls a gun and chambers a round, one can reasonably presume that he is embarking upon the commission of a forcible felony--aggravated assault, murder, armed robbery, or kidnapping.

So the off duty plainclothes dick in DC bringing a gun to a snowball fight would be fair game by that definition. How close do you consider "in proximity? How can you be sure that he does not presume himself to be in imminent danger? Maybe he just saw the guy on the sidewalk behind him pull a knife, and show intent to attack?

<snip>
I don't think that I, or anyone else for that matter, would have a snowball's chance in Phoenix in the summer of being able to react to someone who starts raising his drawn gun first and to shoot him before he shoots me.

So I think that most of us agree that a person with a gun pointed to the ground is a possible imminent threat. Some say blast him, some say draw and challenge.
If you are escalating force, and he already has a gun out, the next level of force is to point the dang gun at the threat! Then challenge. I sure hope that your reaction time on pressing the trigger is quicker than his reaction time to swing the gun up and fire!
Tactical control of the situation... Find a way to gain it, and keep it.

Do you really think that anyone has to, or would, wait until a guy who has just drawn and chambered a round raises his gun at him before defending himself? To me, that idea (idea--don't take that personally) is just as preposterous as the fictional scenes of two men facing each other with hands held above holstered revolvers in the movies, with the guy who "drew first" being rightfully beaten to the draw by the faster man, who only starts reacting to the situation when the first man, for whom reaction time is not an issue, starts his draw.

Since you don't have to wait to present until he shows his intent, just wait to press the trigger, that takes a different spin.
As far as the wild west gun battles, they might not have been as common or quite like hollywood shows them...
But, you can tell when somebody is going to attack just before they do so, if you have so trained. I have a friend I train with that looks at the camera just before I take a picture every time. Even if his back is turned, and I am not even looking at the camera. If I am aware that he is in the picture, he looks at the camera. If he is just out of frame, no problem, but a slight swing, and boom!
(This also applies to other types of weapons as well, don't try sneaking up on him from behind...
Catching tennis balls while blindfolded is a fun exercise also!
You could also fake intent, and scare the other person into drawing when you wanted them too.
Again, control the situation.

By the way, if you are one of men who is in front, the man with the gun is already facing you.

A gun is a tool, it is not the only tool

 

[ke6gwf]

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.

Even if you have reason to believe they are a threat? If you stop and then watch their reaction, that gives you a lot more insight into their intent.
If they continue towards you with aggressive posture, then you ask them to stop. If they refuse, they just escalated it. If you messed up their plan enough, they may turn and run.
On the other hand, if they look like they are out for a stroll, you let them walk past, and you're done.

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 you do this, they are still in control of the situation. You are just moving the point of contact. You have just changed it from a straight line to a triangle.
I would agree with crossing the street if possible, but that would be to make them show their intent, not thinking I was going to escape.
Going up to a house could just be trapping yourself deeper into a hole.

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?

Yup, then you have a chance to take control of the situation. (Taking control does not revolve around a weapon, although it may lead to that)

 

[B yond]

207 posts later...

Has anyone's mind been changed by this argument? From either side?


Anyone?

 

[ke6gwf]

207 posts later...

Has anyone's mind been changed by this argument? From either side?


Anyone?

I don't know about anybody changing their mind, but it has made some of the participants think, and that was my goal with my comments!

It has also made me think through a lot of things, which helps prepare me for unpleasant situations.

 

[Dannix]

Well it has certainly made me think. I fear before I would have waited too late to draw, with rather acute negative ramifications.

 

[Kleanbore]

No, you can not shoot until they become a clear and immediate threat to your life.

True.

(A guy with a knife stating he is going to kill you, and walking towards you, but still 30 feet away may be a clear threat, but not yet immediate. Same with the gun drawn but not pointed at you, and no obvious intent)

True for the former, not clear for the latter in the general case. He pulled a gun when only the two of them and the four of you were present, and no one can react quickly enough to defend himself against a man who has already drawn. Reaction time is the whole principle of the Tueller drill.

In the scenario that started this, no the person walking 20-50 yards in front would not have reasonable cause.

Probably true. I did say general case; the 50 yard distance here likely alters the situation.

Since you don't have to wait to present until he shows his intent, just wait to press the trigger, that takes a different spin.

The threshold is the same for presentation as for pulling the trigger, except in a few states--imminent danger and immediate necessity--unless one is a law enforcement officer or is on military duty.

[They have a legal right to proceed and no one can order them to stop]Even if you have reason to believe they are a threat?

Well, yes, unless you have reason to believe that the threat of death or serious harm is imminent. At that point, of course, you may use deadly force, if you have no alternative, and ordering them to stop at that point is certainly a very good idea before firing.

Wrong--Due to the above mentioned multiple other possible reasons for the gun, the distance, the overall situation and lack of proof it was directed at you.

The distance and proof that the intent was directed at you would be key points there. If it was clear you were his target, then things change, but the OOP was not in that situation

Distance probably. However, there were the four of you and the two of them and as I read it, no one else around. Sure, one can conjure up a myriad of possible reasons, but they do not matter. You do not have to prove intent; you have to have a reason to believe that jeopardy exists.The true intent will remain irrelevant, should that belief be judged as reasonable based on what was known at the time.

Also as you your self just said "if you have no other recourse, you may then use deadly force to defend yourself." What other recourse would he have? Run, hide, call for help, present to low ready and order the other person to drop the gun.

Setting aside the distance, just for discussion, you cannot outrun a bullet.

Shooting someone that you think might be a threat to you is not the only recourse in that situation!

Not only is it not the only recourse, it is not an option, until "you think might be a threat" is replaced by "you have reason to believe is an imminent threat."

I suggested considering the whole thing from the point of view of the other four people just to see if opinions changed. If one starts out thinking that one party is the "good guy" have may see things one way. Turn the tables and analyze it the other way. That could give an important clue about what might happen in court.

I do not know the law in Pennsylvania. I do know that some appellate courts, in rulings pertinent to convictions of persons who have drawn guns, have distinguished between cases in which guns were pointed at others and those in which they were not.

I also know of a conviction with a stiff sentence that was upheld even though the gun in hand was pointed at no one.

In states with brandishing laws, it is generally the case that the man with the gun need not intend to cause fear in someone else to be convicted for having done so, while intent does matter if the charge is one of assault. Is that different in practice in some states without brandishing laws? I don't know.

I do not know of any cases in which a defense of justification was unsuccessful because the alleged assailant only had his gun "at low ready."

Don't confuse the case of the DC policeman with this; he was not the instigator, and there were 200+ unruly demonstrators disturbing the peace not only on the sidewalk but in a busy public thoroughfare., and unless one assumed that he was a ham radio operator acting very strangely, any reasonable person observing him talking on his radio in the middle of an intersection would conclude that he was probably acting in an official capacity.

 

[ke6gwf]

<snip>
Don't confuse the case of the DC policeman with this; he was not the instigator, and there were 200+ unruly demonstrators disturbing the peace not only on the sidewalk but in a busy public thoroughfare., and unless one assumed that he was a ham radio operator acting very strangely, any reasonable person observing him talking on his radio in the middle of an intersection would conclude that he was probably acting in an official capacity.

I probably wasted too much time digging up pics and video on it, but from what I saw, and what I based my comments on, the dick (short for detective... got out of his personal vehicle with his hand on his gun, and then drew it on the crowd. Then he went back and got his radio. At no point did he declare that he was LE, which I believe is sorta common thing to do when you are plainclothes, BEFORE you draw your weapon to intimidate!

If he had talked on his radio first, or pulled a badge before a gun, it might have been better for him.

The "Demonstrators" were not demonstrators. It was a flashmob snowball fight organized via twitter and blogs, similar idea to Improv Everywhere.
They were there just having fun. There wasn't much traffic due to the snow, and the crowd helped several cars that got stuck in the drifts, including a police car. There were other cops watching and taking pictures but not doing anything about it before Dick showed up.
The other cops even told the crowd they could continue their snowball fight (after the guns got put away).
The Dick stated that he pulled his gun because somebody threw a snowball at his Hummer.
So, he was the instigator as far as threat is concerned.
His boss seems to agree.
It seems he may have reacted to this situation like some of the commentators on this thread would!

 

[AKElroy]

I have posted this before, but first let me say that I agree with those stating a weapon should never be drawn as a threat with no intent to fire. That stated, I have done it.

When my daughter was a newborn, we took a trip to see family in the Texas hill country. We stopped at an overlook next to the Blanco river to change a diaper & for my wife to nurse the baby. It was hot, so the car was running & they were in the back seat. I walked to the river to check it out.

A few minutes later, I notice a teenage banger heading towards my car. I was closer & had the angle, so I beat him to it. I reached under the seat for my 1911, loaded mag, empty chamber. As I was reaching under the seat, I asked my wife where he was. She stated he was right behind me. I turned to face him, gun in my hand at my side, and I asked him what he wanted. He threw up his hands & backed up saying "he didn't want no trouble" & took off. I had ZERO doubt what he was planning to do; there were no other cars anywhere close. No doubt he was waiting or an idiot like me to stop & leave the car running on such a hot day.

After blindly reacting with thoughts of my wife & baby being absconded with, I got in the car & drove away. We got a mile or so down the road, turned around to make sure no other families would be victimized & found no one.

I did a lot of things wrong; I should have confronted him w/o a weapon first, and I should have called LE after brandishing that weapon to explain my actions to avoid me being potentially face down in a felony stop. I should have had a weapon that was more than an empty threat.

I was lucky to have had it turn out OK; I would do a lot differently today. We did not have CCW in Texas back then.

 

[gym]

No two situations are the same. They may appear to be, but rarely if ever are. It's bad to determine what you will do in a situation that has never happened to you. I am not saying don't practice responding, only that predetermining that you will definitely do this or that, can result in you making a mistake that will haunt you the rest of your life assuming you are alive after. I would liken it to being either too trigger happy, or too cautious. One must evaluate the individual situation before action or non action is taken. Perhaps exercising the mind to think faster is a better way to explain it. One can shoot too fast only to find out that they just shot the wrong person. Many times things are not what they appear. I understand having been there that you don't get the time or luxury to sit around and figure everything out when you are in fear of losing your life. But making predetermined decisions about what you will do is just foolish IMO. You won't know what you are facing until it happens. If you trained properly and are good at making important decisions fast, you will survive. If not all the talk in the world won't help. This is not directed to anyone just a general observation by one who has been in that position before.

 

[QUICK_DRAW_McGRAW]

ive only drawn twice, once when a 16 year old tried to rob me, and the second time was when a corrections officer pointed a 1911 at my niece, my wife and myself in traffic. both times it was to shoot and not scare them away but they did leave me alone both times when they saw me draw.

 

[Bugflipper]

Quick draw. please tell more on that story if you don't mind.

I think a lot of these folks are a little liberal in their thinking. But this may be attributed to living in an anti gun area, being fearful of prosecution for self defense. Or possibly they over analyze situations. Plain and simple a weapon and an inherit threat equals self defense. If one wants to analyze the situation they may run out of time. It has been proven over and over that a man with a knife 7 yards away can get to you and inflict wounds before the average man can clear a holster. The simple solution is to eliminate the threat. Whether that is by firing or being ready to fire. If one expects the chance of survival or protection of others they must react and take control of the situation. If they are waiting to see what the bad guy is doing, they can do neither unless the bad guy decides he doesn't want to. The whole object of self defense is to hopefully level, or better yet gain an advantage on the playing field.

I am all for civilian training in self defense. If one is trained well hopefully he/she can deal with the situation. If he/she procrastinates odds are not in the favor of the good guy.

 

[mgkdrgn]

If I draw, it is because I -am- going to use the weapon to stop an attack.

If, in that split second before I pull the trigger, the BG decides to withdraw, they -may- avoid getting shot. However, that decision on their part will have to be damn near instantaneous and 100% non-ambiguous to me.

-MY- purpose is to stop the attack. If I can do that with out spending money on ammunition, so much the better. But, if I draw I've already reconciled myself to having to replace a few rounds in the magazine.

 

[QUICK_DRAW_McGRAW]

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=429837&highlight=interesting

this is what happened with the corrections officer.

 

[makarovnik]

Well I won't beat around the bush. Hell yes I would brandish my weapon to scare a perp. Just be ready to fire in case the other guy has a gun and is ready to use it.

 

[Impureclient]

I think the people in this thread need to get with the people in this thread below:

Have you ever used your sidearm in self defense?http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=345595

 

[rpadgett2]

I would only pull mine if I thought lethal force was the only way out. In that case the gun would go bang unless they turned and ran very fast.