Getting beat up, do you draw?

[langenc]

Only read first couple posts.

Do NOT discriminate-size has no bearing. Do the same-BIG or small.

 

[sansone]

first attempt retreat, if unable to retreat, point gun at attacker, if he doesn't flee..shoot

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

Zonamo, you left out a fairly significant bit of information in your quote. "Midcap testified he fired at Popin's chest from a prone position; an autopsy showed Popin had been shot in the back." Even in a "Stand your ground" state you can't shoot people in the back.

Do NOT discriminate-size has no bearing. Do the same-BIG or small.

Wait a second, are you saying the response to a 4' tall, 60 pound 8 year old coming at you is the same as a 6' 180lb 17 year old?

first attempt retreat, if unable to retreat, point gun at attacker, if he doesn't flee..shoot

You may wish to rephrase that. If the attack stops, you ought not shoot. Fleeing is not a requirement.

 

[Gordon]

Being 61 years old , with snowy white hair, the "Nike defense" doesn't need to be deployed! Just block my egress or close to my rear and the "el Presidente" makes his move. Actually being trained in CQB by Scott Reitz at ITTS and Louis Awerbuck (read the latest SWAT magizine issue!) makes me personally (not necessarily anyone else, not reccomending anything) LESS likely to engage , as I am reasonably confident in the outcome

 

[Clipper]

At my age & weight, diabetic and with one heart attack in my past, a skinny 15 year-old with a head cold could likely be a deadly threat...

 

[Lupinus]

Outside of a few very limited circumstances when it comes to fighting I never assume two things.

1- That this guy only intends to hurt me, and not maim or kill me. While that might be his intention it might not be and its a gamble I'm not prepared to take.

2- That I can beat this guy hand to hand. I'm no light weight, I work a fairly physical job, and in the fights I have been in I held my own fine. But I have to ask myself, if this guy is gung ho to fight he is either crazy or believes he can kick my backside, and if he believes it he just may have good reason to. For all I know the guy is some sort of martial arts expert or just plain out has been in enough fights to know his way around them better then I do. Again, he may not and he may just be an idiot out looking to get a beating. And just because I don't see a weapon doesn't mean there isn't one. And even if he doesn't have one of his own I do, and just going hand to hand runs the rish he will get mine and use it agianst me. The last thing I need is to be in a close quarters fight with someone and end up with a knife in my guy from out of no where or to get shot by my own gun. Again, its a gamble with my life I am not willing to take.

Now every time some idiot feels the need to yell at me or make himself feel tough will I going to draw? No. Depending on the situation I may even jsut choose to ignore it or outright leave. But if he is already in the process of attacking me, its pretty darn clear he is about to and theres no other really good option, or he has a weapon and is making it pretty clear he would like to use it then yeah, I'd draw and defend myself as needed.

 

[Zonamo]

Zonamo, you left out a fairly significant bit of information in your quote. "Midcap testified he fired at Popin's chest from a prone position; an autopsy showed Popin had been shot in the back." Even in a "Stand your ground" state you can't shoot people in the back.

This wasn't a quick draw competition. It was an asault in the middle of the night. There is plenty of time between the mental commitment to squeezing a trigger and the ability to react to a change in the conditions of the conflict for a person legitimately firing a weapon to end up shooting their assailant in the back.

It takes a typical person 1.5 seconds to receive sensory input, perceive/recognize meaning, extrapolate and project that meaning into the future, and select a response. It can take even longer under extreme and unfamiliar circumstances.

If Popin had begun to turn the moment he perceived the gun, it would have taken as much as 1.5 seconds for him to actually begin to move. In that same 1.5 seconds Midcap would have been drawing and firing. By the time Midcap could have reacted to Popin turning, as much as 3 seconds would have passed from his decision to draw and fire, which could easily have been a second or more after he fired.

So when Midcap testified he fired at Popin's chest from a prone position, he could very well have been telling the truth, even if the autopsy showed Popin turned before the gun actually discharged.

But yes, the lawyers and the papers will fry you for it. Being accused of shooting someone in the back is just another risk you face when you choose to defend yourself with a firearm unless you are a quick draw artist.

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

So when Midcap testified he fired at Popin's chest from a prone position, he could very well have been telling the truth, even if the autopsy showed Popin turned before the gun actually discharged.

He also could very well have been lying and knowingly shot the guy in the back. We can play Monday morning quarterback and cite reaction times all we want, but if the entry wound is in the back you're in a hell of a lot of trouble. It was also a key part of the prosecution's case against Midcap. Leaving that bit out certainly mischaracterizes the situation, especially in the context of this thread.

Based on the fact the guy plead guilty on a lesser charge, I would guess the case the prosecution had against him couldn't be adequately refuted by reaction times.

 

[Zonamo]

He could also very well have been lying and knowingly shot the guy in the back.

Yes it’s possible. Some of the jury were convinced.

We can play Monday morning quarterback and cite reaction times all we want, but if the entry wound is in the back you're in a hell of a lot of trouble.

Like I already said, if you do end up shooting someone in the time window between your assailant turning and your realizing he has withdrawn from the fight, expect the lawyers and papers to fry you for it.

Leaving that bit out certainly mischaracterizes the situation, especially in the context of this thread.

Jorg, I quickly skimmed the article and posted enough to pique interest in a case matching the topic of the thread. It wasn’t meant to be complete-that’s why I gave the link. Not choosing to cut and paste the entire article wasn’t purposely “leaving something out,” it was overlooking something you thought was significant.

But I agree that in the context of this thread it is important to be aware that if you defend yourself against a “behemoth of a man very angry at you and articulating threats such as 'I'm gonna kick your butt,'" you could end up with the lawyers accusing you of shooting someone in the back even if you didn’t. The possibility that you could end up in that situation is more important to the context of this thread than whether Midcap actually did shoot Popin in the back rather than failing to react in time to his withdrawing. So thanks for bringing up that aspect of the trial

Based on the fact the guy plead guilty on a lesser charge, I would guess the case the prosecution had against him couldn't be adequately refuted by reaction times.

I would guess that the reaction time issue was a key factor in the defense getting a hung jury, and the reason the prosecutor offered the far lesser charge of negligent homicide as a plea bargain after he lost the trial. I would also guess that the prosecutor made the offer knowing that an ailing cerebral palsy inflicted old man wouldn’t want to face the stress of a second trial. And I would further guess that the defense counseled his client to accept the offer because there were enough holes in their case that Midcap might not get as lucky on a second trial.

Court’s a crap-shoot. Better to never be there, even if you are in the right.

 

[Sav .250]

Having a permit to carry means just that. I would think one would also know
(in advance) all the legal requirements as to when to display it (in the hand)
and certainly when to defend yourself with it.
It stands to reason that if you shoot/kill somebody the police will investigate
as to the validity of your action.
Tough call to start with but the burden of the legal action falls on you.
IMO.

 

[TheFederalistWeasel]

As I've said before, when the thought of going to jail is better than the thought of what will happen if you don't react, the time has come to clear leather.

Personally I was absent the day they taught the application of mind reading to threat assessment, so I cannot tell you for sure if all this guy is going to do is pop me a couple of times then leave. When does an a$$ beating cross the threshold of great bodily harm. It's hard to make that decision while some one is pounding on you and whats to say this guy don't have a roll of quarters or brass knuckles you've yet to see. What if this guy has the punching strength of Mike Tyson or a silverback gorilla? What then, when you are laying face down in a puddle of blood and CSF pouring from your ears and your last thought is damn, I should of drawn...

 

[TallPine]

A gun in the hand is worth two in the holster