How likely are you to shoot me?

[Nushif]

Actually in this case I described myself for ease of description. around here how I look is the norm, so I don't actually get much negative or positive feedback.
Travel usually happens with the Army so people assume I must clearly be one of the good guys.

The point I am making is that the advice presented is usually overly simplistic, much too broad and in general not conducive to making a good neighbor or any kind of informed decisions about realistic threat levels outside of the 1950's as seen on TV.

 

[smalls]

"Does ANYTHING short of a suit immediately mean possible criminal?"

I find that most criminals wear suits

 

[Sam1911]

The question is:
"What gives you reason to assume in this case that you need a reason for your defenses to come up when standing in front of me?"

Because you're a human being I don't know who's approaching me for reasons I don't yet know to be harmless.

The notion of hoodies as a significant indicator of threat for instance has even on this board gained little to no real traction.

Correct. A garment by itself is very rarely a telling indicator of anything.

Short cropped hair (in my case for military grooming reasons and a balding head) also is no indicator of anything other than sheer awesomeness (right? 8) )

Agreed. Hair doesn't tell me that your intentions are evil or good.

...and my question in this case would be "Why are you on alert if there is only one negative indication versus neutral or even positive ones?

Because you need to be on alert if you're approached by a stranger without an obvious good reason.

"Do ALL hoodies ALWAYS mean we should watch out?"
"Do ALL tattoos ALWAYS mean bad things?"

Neither, obviously. Neither mean, "ATTACK IMMINENT" or "Good Guy -- No Danger."

"Does ANYTHING short of a suit immediately mean possible criminal?"

A suit does not mean "let your guard down." No strange adult approaching you for unknown reasons means "let your guard down."

Obviously that's not the case, so why is there ALWAYS the need for instant defensive tactics?

Because you may not have a chance to respond at all if you aren't aware and at least mentally prepared to respond to hostile action. Not because the guy looks like a nu-metal band groupie, but because you don't know anything about this person and defensive thinking is the default.

 

[Certaindeaf]

I think people, especially children, intuitively trust clowns because their big flapping shoes make a lot of noise when they approach.

that was a joke

 

[RTR_RTR]

Situation 1:

Now, I have pulled over when people were on the side of the road, usually with a flashlight in hand and I walk towards the car asking something along the lines of "Hey, what's the problem?" in a friendly tone. Yes, at night.

As someone who has previously stopped several times to help someone on the side of the road (when safety permitted), someone approaching me while I'm in/near the car ALWAYS puts me on edge. Maybe this is just my "pet" thing that really puts my hair on end. I don't carry a firearm, so you're not in danger of getting shot though . Regardless, whenever I stop to see if someone needs help, I stop a very healthy distance away from them, and I'd recommend doing the same (if you don't already). There's no need to get any closer than a few yards off to talk to them.

 

[gp911]

Being approached by someone with a friendly demeanor isn't the concern, it's discerning whether the stranger is using charm to make the other person let down their guard. When their smile doesn't reach their eyes and their physical intensity doesn't match their relaxing banter trouble is imminent. So no, I won't think "hipster beard, gauged ears, tats, must be trouble" but if you are asking me questions and ignoring my answers while trying to close space I'll be circling, blading off, etc. Many other variables are at play.

 

[conw]

Blading off is considered martially unsound. it also telegraphs that you're armed. I am stating this for lurkers so they don't pick up bad habits, not to start a debate with those who prefer this technique.

 

[allaroundhunter]

Blading off is considered martially unsound. it also telegraphs that you're armed. I am stating this for lurkers so they don't pick up bad habits, not to start a debate with those who prefer this technique.

There are methods that allow you to blade your weapon away from a possible threat that does not immediately say, "I am armed".

And, it is also not always a bad idea to send that message. A very large majority of criminals will break off an attack if they have a good reason to believe that their target poses a serious threat to them.

 

[Losov]

This isn't a question of approval but a question of assumption of hostility.

The question is:
"What gives you reason to assume in this case that you need a reason for your defenses to come up when standing in front of me?"

Oh? You've changed your original question? I've answered it but you don't like the answer, and you're challenging my reasons. I made it clear that you don't have to approve of my reasons yet you express disapproval after stating it's not about approval.

When you've decided what it is you're asking, try again.

 

[Ashcons]

You've got seconds to make a call on someone approaching you. All appearances will be weighed by the person making the decision. Some people will see you as threatening, others won't. Most people don't have the sense to listen to the little voice that warns about danger because their reaction to that alarm would be socially awkward or rude.

Body language and eye contact is what I first notice about people, followed by other physical appearance factors. Location also affects my alertness. All of those factors could still fail to provide me with information I need to escape harm some day.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

If you still kept moving towards me I would probably throw a medium power sucker punch to the solar plexus and then back away. This does no perminate damage, leaves no evidence and you will get over it in a minute or two and by then I will be gone.

Well, all of that and you'd be guilty of a violent crime.

 

[bigfatdave]

a hoodie can most definitely be a clear indicator of a threat. If someone is wearing a hoodie and approaching me, hood on, and not wanting to make eye contact with me then warning bells go off. (1)
If someone is wearing a hoodie and trying to use the hood to conceal their identity, warning bells go off.(2)
Heck, if they have their eyes locked on me and have "that look" in them....bells definitely go off.(3)

1 - if they're not looking at you
2 - if you can't tell if they're looking at you
3 - if they are looking at you
... you have alarm bells going off

must be stressful in spring and fall

 

[chris26]

The fact that the question has to be asked is ample evidence that the answer is self evident. You have chosen to look the way that you do, wear the clothes that you do and carry yourself the way that you do. If you find that most folks would find you worthy of at the least another look, due to your look being associated with others that have committed unlawful acts, well that has been your choice. You should know this already....on drill you are beholden to the standards of AR 670-1 regarding dress, appearance etc. There is a reason that we in the military are required to dress and act in a professional manner when in uniform. If we did not, we would not be perceived as a professional force. You wear your best set of Class A's to your promotion board, correct? This is used as a tool to judge whether or not you present a profession, military appearance. The fact that you have chosen to dress and groom yourself in the manner as seen in popular culture as a hoodlum, biker, or tough guy is a personal choice. The personal choice of others would be to consider you as you wish to portray yourself. If you wish others to perceive you in a different manner, portray yourself in a different manner. In society, we usually find that the outward appearance of a person indicates the manner in which they wish to be perceived. This is universal. Think back to your deployment(s), you were trained to look for a certain type of dress, action or appearance that would indicate danger while on patrol. Over in the Big Sandy, these things do get you killed, captured or detained for questioning. Over here, the mannerisms, dress, and actions portrayed by a person who is larger than myself, is clothed and groomed like what society views as the biker/criminal element and does not address others politely....gets you a second look from me. Not shot, not drawn on, etc. But you do get that second look. Wish to change how others react to your appearance or presence, change it. Otherwise, expect the reactions you have received to repeat themselves. I have found that the voluntary outward appearance of others is a direct reflection of how they wish themselves to be perceived and I react accordingly (Of course, politicians deserve a second look every time! Regardless of how professional they look!)

 

[allaroundhunter]

1 - if they're not looking at you
2 - if you can't tell if they're looking at you
3 - if they are looking at you
... you have alarm bells going off

must be stressful in spring and fall

Well, if you try to make it as simple as that, then sure. However, as my post showed, it actually is not as simple as that.

It wasn't just their eyes, it was their manner of concealing them in the first two. In the third, it is a straight up look of aggression or malice. If you try to make that out as simple as you seem to, then you must not pay enough attention to people's eyes....However, you should; they can tell you a lot about one's intentions.

And here in Texas, spring and fall do not mean hoodies. Hoodies are reserved for the dead of winter down here

 

[Ledgehammer]

Tattoos in general don't set off any bells for me. Considering half the population under 40 have them now. I have a full calf sleeve and I work in an office environment. Now the types of tattoos will send big signals to me. Gang signs, lots of skulls or drug symbols - also I can quickly judge the quality of your tats. Jail house tags look very different than what I have on my leg.

Broken down on the side of the road I feel very vulnerable, especially at night. I may accept your help but will definitely not turn my back on you or anybody for that matter. There are a lot of good people left in this world all different shapes, colors and sizes. You can usually get a vibe pretty quick on people's intentions.

 

[Doc3402]

I haven't read through the rest of thread yet, but here is my initial reaction to the questions you asked. Your questions can't be answered because there is one thing you have failed to address. How did you approach the people in question?

If you hang back about 10 feet from me and keep your hands in sight I won't feel threatened. I'll be alert, but not threatened. If you try to force your way into my space, there is a disparity of force and at a minimum you're going to end up needing clean underwear.

Look, you know your appearance may put some people off. If you didn't you wouldn't have asked. Why not let your body language do the talking for you?

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Owen Sparks: If you still kept moving towards me I would probably throw a medium power sucker punch to the solar plexus and then back away. This does no perminate damage, leaves no evidence and you will get over it in a minute or two and by then I will be gone.

Let me take this opportunity to remind everyone of one of our rules: Advocacy of any kind of unlawful or clearly unethical conduct is not permitted. People who do not keep that in mind will electronically disappear.

Specific to that post: the person's testimony would be evidence, as would that of any other witnesses. That discoverable post would intself be evidence.

And one's belief that it "does no perminate damage" wouldn't help if that turned out to not be true.

 

[Doc3402]

Kleanbore,

I don't see anything "unlawful or clearly unethical" in defending yourself from a perceived threat. Let me quote Owen Sparks and highlight why I don't see the "unlawful or clearly unethical" part of it.

If you still kept moving towards me I would probably throw a medium power sucker punch to the solar plexus and then back away.

I am 5'9, 165 pounds, and have heart disease. if the person moves towards me in spite of my asking/telling him not to there is most definitely a perceived threat, there is most definitely a disparity of force based on the OP's description of himself, and I would most definitely be fully justified in whatever steps I took to defend myself, up to and including the use of deadly force.

If my disagreeing with you is enough to make me

electronically disappear.

there isn't much I can do about it, but I'm hoping you might see this from a disabled persons point of view. To me, in my overall physical condition, an 8th grader could cause death or great bodily harm if I was not equipped to defend myself.

 

[easyg]

My father once told me:

"Son, if you look like a circus freak then people will treat you like a circus freak."



And he was right.

Hey, I was a teenager going through a phase...


The bottom line is this:
It's your right to dress and groom yourself in any manner you like.
But, yes, others will judge you based on your appearance.
If you want to wear a t-shirt with a swastika on it, don't get mad if folks think you're a nazi.
If you want to wear a t-shirt with the hammer and sickle on it, don't get mad if folks think you're a communist.
And if you want to look like a slightly dangerous recently paroled felon, then don't get mad if folks treat you like a slightly dangerous recently paroled felon.

 

[Sam1911]

am 5'9, 165 pounds, and have heart disease. if the person moves towards me in spite of my asking/telling him not to there is most definitely a perceived threat, there is most definitely a disparity of force based on the OP's description of himself, and I would most definitely be fully justified in whatever steps I took to defend myself, up to and including the use of deadly force.

However the fact remains, "moving towards" someone is not an unambiguously threatening act. How you perceived it at the time MAY influence a jury that you had grounds to use deadly force to defend yourself but there is no guarantee whatsoever that you'd be justified in shooting someone who "moved toward" you. Your request to them that they not come closer, and their disregard of that request may support your claim of necessity, but telling someone not to move (even closer to you) is not a request that you're allowed to enforce with lethal force.

If you shoot someone under the conditions you describe, you're going to need to have some credible proof that they were about to harm you. SIMPLY the disparity of size and their motion toward you isn't likely to be compelling that you had no choice but to KILL them.

 

[Owen Sparks]

telling someone not to move (even closer to you) is not a request that you're allowed to enforce with lethal force.

And that is exactly why I advocate a medium power sucker punch to the solar plexus. People get over having the wind knocked out of them The last time I had to do this was because a belligerent drunk was verbally threatening me and trying to put his hands on me in a public parking lot. I put my hands up in the classic ‘fence’ position and attempted to back away (even though I am not required to by law in my ‘stand your ground’ state).

I made it very obvious to the half dozen witnesses that I was trying to leave. I distinctly said “I am afraid of you, don’t come any closer! I want to get in my car and leave.” I moved and circled until he got me cornered between some parked cars and the instant he got too close I knocked the wind out of him with a single punch which sat him down. That was the end of it and I never drew my weapon. I found out from the police later on that he thought I was someone else who had been fooling around with his estranged wife. They charged him with disorderly conduct and told me I did the right thing by not hurting him even though I could have gotten away with it.

 

[Frank Ettin]

telling someone not to move (even closer to you) is not a request that you're allowed to enforce with lethal force.

And that is exactly why I advocate a medium power sucker punch to the solar plexus. People get over having the wind knocked out of them ...

Someone might get over it, unless he had some medical condition causing the injury to be more serious than you expected or you hit him harder than you thought.

But more importantly, hitting him is still a crime. The Common Law term is "battery", but different penal codes might use different terminology; but it is still a crime, and you could still go to jail unless you can establish that your use of force was legally justified by a reasonable fear of an unlawful, harmful contact.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Doc3402: I don't see anything "unlawful or clearly unethical" in defending yourself from a perceived threat.

I trust that Sam1911 and Frank Ettin have been sufficiently clear. I'll add.

To be justified in the use of force, deadly or otherwise, you are going to have to provide evidence that a reasonable person, knowing what you knew at the time, would have had an objective reason to believe that the use of such force was immediately necessary for your own defense against harm and could not have been avoided.

You simply cannot go around striking people because they approach you or continue in a direction that you do not like, not matter how scary you may perceive them to be.

Yes, you the law does provide for justification of the use of deadly force against one or more unarmed individuals if a disparity of force can be shown and if the use of deadly force was immediately necessary to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.

You would have to provide at least some evidence that the person had the ability to kill or maim you; that he was in a position to do so; that it was his intent to do so; and that you had no other safe alternative.

Disparity of force has to do only with ability.

 

[blarby]

A general persons' perception of you is going to be significantly colored by their respective background.

To me, after a cursory exam, you'd warrant no more attention than the next fellow based on my experience.

Now, you start doing or saying things that I find peculiar, or are noteworthy thats a completely different story.

Of note... I'm not a big fan of judging books by their covers. Some are. So this opinion is worth exactly what you think it is.

Still don't understand how we haven't bumped into each other shooting yet..... we both are hoodie-o-philes, and we aren't that far apart. We have to run in the same haunts from time to time.

And that is exactly why I advocate a medium power sucker punch to the solar plexus. People get over having the wind knocked out of them The last time I had to do this was because a belligerent drunk was verbally threatening me and trying to put his hands on me in a public parking lot. I put my hands up in the classic ‘fence’ position and attempted to back away (even though I am not required to by law in my ‘stand your ground’ state).

I made it very obvious to the half dozen witnesses that I was trying to leave. I distinctly said “I am afraid of you, don’t come any closer! I want to get in my car and leave.” I moved and circled until he got me cornered between some parked cars and the instant he got too close I knocked the wind out of him with a single punch which sat him down. That was the end of it and I never drew my weapon. I found out from the police later on that he thought I was someone else who had been fooling around with his estranged wife. They charged him with disorderly conduct and told me I did the right thing by not hurting him even though I could have gotten away with it.

This is substantially different than the example given by the op, and the response you gave

 

[Doc3402]

I trust that Sam1911 and Frank Ettin have been sufficiently clear. I'll add.

To be justified in the use of force, deadly or otherwise, you are going to have to provide evidence that a reasonable person, knowing what you knew at the time, would have had an objective reason to believe that the use of such force was immediately necessary for your own defense against harm and could not have been avoided.

You simply cannot go around striking people because they approach you or continue in a direction that you do not like, not matter how scary you may perceive them to be.

Yes, you the law does provide for justification of the use of deadly force against one or more unarmed individuals if a disparity of force can be shown and if the use of deadly force was immediately necessary to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.

You would have to provide at least some evidence that the person had the ability to kill or maim you; that he was in a position to do so; that it was his intent to do so; and that you had no other safe alternative.

Disparity of force has to do only with ability.

I understand what you and the others have said, and for the most part I have agreed with the posts following mine. There is one thing you are incorrect about in your most recent post, at least as it pertains to me.

...could not have been avoided.

We no longer have a duty to retreat. If at all possible I will attempt to, but I am no longer obligated to attempt a retreat under Florida Statute.

Disparity of force has to do only with ability.

As a five time loser in the heart attack pool and a cardiac arrest survivor I do not have the ability to fight with my hands and I do not have the ability to run. I do not have the strength or the endurance. If I find myself in a physical confrontation I must rely on other means. That's why I depend so much on common sense keeping me out of situations where force might be necessary.