Discussion in 'Strategies, Tactics, and Training' started by Balrog, Nov 30, 2019.
Thanks, TM, for filling in.
The implication is that you're going to spray gas all over them and light them on fire. Which, as I mentioned, isn't going to end well for anyone
Would not justify this:
Acting aggressively would surely destroy any legal defense.
And it could lead to the actor being the victim of lawful deadly force,
No I just turned to face them with the nozzle in hand.
In 2007 I was involved in a road range incident. I was scared so I displayed my gun. Even though I really was afraid, I wasn't legally justified(That's one of the reasons I almost always comment that your perception of the threat isn't going to be the determining factor).
It was by the Grace of God, and I mean that in absolutely the most literal sense, that I wasn't arrested, sent to prison and lost my second amendment rights as well as all my other Civil Liberties forever.
I learned that lesson the easy way but I learned it well.
In most jurisdictions threatening somebody with gun is considered employing deadly force. It's no different than threatening to kill them and you better be able to prove that you had a damn good reason to do it.
If you ever pull a gun on somebody you are going to have to justify it. You'd better plan on it and you had better be able to articulate a very specific behavior on the part of the other person that made you believe that you had no no other option than to employ deadly force.
You had also better plan on being able to prove that you did everything in your power to keep the situation from escalating to deadly force.
I don't know how else to say this, you had better not pull that gun out unless you have literally no other option and you're willing to risk your freedom and your livelihood by doing it.
I understand exactly what you're saying. And it doesn't change my answer in that extreme version of this scenario, that I made up.
But then again, what I meant by "acting aggressively" and what you think I meant, may be two very different things.
I imagine there are moments in the lives of some unfortunate individuals, where worrying about whether their actions are legally defensible, actually get them killed.
The wrong decision can put them in a cage for life or get them killed.
True. Everyone's gotta make decisions based on the information they have at the time.
Talking tough only escalates things in my experience and makes you look weak. There should be little talking only a willingness to act and an obviously apparent resolve to fight tooth and nail. Physical cues instead of verbal spars. I was cornered in a similar fashion in a mens room once about 20 years ago by two drunk ne'er do wells and my apparent willingness to throw down "I'm ready" was pretty much all it took for them to decide i was more willing to fight than they were. I was hedging my bets that a) I could physically compete with them b) they would back down if I presented myself as eager to engage in a scuffle.
I want to live but I also want to have some quality of life.
There is currently a case in the Colorado Springs Court System in which the renter of an apartment shot a vagrant in the basement of his apartment building and claimed Make My Day(Colorado doesn't have Stand Your Ground).
It took a year just to get the case to trial the first time. That's a full year of billable attorney's fees, which would be enough to bankrupt most people.
When the case finally made it to trial the judge declared a mistrial and the district attorney decided to prosecute the case again. So the defendant is going to have to continue to pay a lawyer or agree to a plea bargain.
Remember your decisions don't only affect you. In the state of Colorado you don't decide if you qualify for a Public Defender the State does. They will make you liquidate all of your assets and pay for your own attorney until you are bankrupt before signing a Public Defender to your case. I really hope you didn't plan on sending your kids to college or ever owning a home again or ever having a good credit rating again.
The Public Defender that they assign to you will not be the lawyer that you've already given your life savings to. It will be a State Public Defender who probably has 70 cases on his plate and who will be taking your case in the middle of the trial. What do you think the odds are that he's going to be able to mount an effective defense?
I'm not trying to be a Prick or a Know it all I'm just telling you what the realities of the legal system are.
As always, YMMV but you might want to take the above into consideration before you skin that smoke wagon and go to work.
I think you'll find that at no point have I suggested shooting anyone. An assumption seems to have been made somewhere in this thread that I'm advocating using lethal force in a situation where it is neither justifiable nor excusable. And that's not the case.
I try very hard to stay on the right side of the law, even when I know no one is watching. However, sometimes doing the legal thing, isn't the safest option. One example of an illegal and aggressive act would be brandishing a firearm. And there are times where otherwise law abiding citizens have seen a situation unfolding that they consider will become dangerous to them. And they have brandished their firearm to stop the escalation of the threat. Those decisions, we must make for ourselves.
You realize that as soon as the driver of the truck showed his Glock he employed deadly force right?
Don't think you came across that way at all. The truth isn't always pleasant. You have a split second to weigh your options in cases like this and every decision will have plusses and minuses. What you laid out is a real possibility. Anytime there is physical conflict you have to consider you might get painted as the aggressor even though it may not be true. It's definitely worth major consideration that you may bankrupt and negatively affect your family for the future or be forced into being a fugitive if you are in the wrong in the sight of the law.
I'll take being a fugitive over jail time, bankrupting the family, or victim/cadaver status. Lawyers are expensive, so are burials.
This is why I advocated for non-lethal methods in this one. The charges for being in the wrong are much less life-damaging if you busted a lip vs bullets and bone breaking methods. At the same time I understand why he brandished the Glock. He was hedging his bet that these dirtbags wouldn't go to the police, probably had warrants with the behavior they were displaying. Gather info fast and act decisively. Decisive does not always mean best.
Okay first of all let's establish where my comments have come from.
The OP did not give enough information in the initial post for me to make an assessment. I said so.
He asked what more information I wanted.
I listed some important factors that would effect decision making. Then I created two extreme examples from the original scenario using different criteria from my own list. I did this to show that without enough details two people could imagine two very different scenarios, and the resulting action/reaction to each could be very different.
And in one of those scenarios - the one where I depict the truck driver to be alone, in an isolated place, at night, where there are no passers-by and no cameras, and with two men positioning themselves tactically and looking at him as prey - I advocated that he "act aggressively".
What you and Kleanbore both have taken issue with has been your interpretations of that phrase, and/or comments I have made in response to views stemming from that hypothetical. Not from the actual situation the OPs friend found himself of in.
So just to be clear, I already made my position to the OPs situation clear. It's up thread, and it involves driving away quickly.
Regarding my stance on my own hypothetical version of the scenario: I have intentionally been vague because I try not to advocate for actions which are illegal. I have still not actually advocated for brandishing (even under the pretext of that hypothetical). So whilst your statement above is not in question by me, I never said I'd do it. Nor did I say anyone else should do it. Only that it has been done, and it could stop the escalation of a threat. And that this action, whilst illegal, could possibly, in certain circumstances, be a better course of action than doing nothing and letting the wolves circle closer where any advantage is lost.
So that's where all this has come from.
It would at least be the threat of deadly force. In the state this occurred, threat of force, use of force, and use of deadly force are legal when defending one's habitation, which includes your house, your work, and your vehicle. We also have a stand your ground law. So, I don't think what he did was necessarily illegal, and could be argued that it was not illegal successfully, especially in a rural conservative area. The police certainly did not make issue of it. It would be best to avoid having to make such a defense argument though.
But I was looking to see how others would have handled the situation to avoid that. So far, I am not sure I have seen alternatives to successfully handle the situation, just criticism of the way it was handled and some second guessing about why the guy wasn't carrying the gun on his person.
I do think it would have been better for him to have had the gun on his person. He could have put his hand on the gun without revealing it, then told the guys he couldn't help them, and let their reaction determine the next step.
They main point that I'm trying communicate is that the line is paper thin and you can cross it by accident. The police are not your friends in this and they are not on your side. I realize you don't always have the option but if at all possible drawing that gun should the last thing you try. It should be obvious that you exhausted all other options before you draw. I don't know exactly how to say it but it's for your benefit to have that attitude.
I agree that drawing the gun should be last resort. Question is, was he at the last resort? I am not sure anyone has offered a good way to handle it. They have asked what if they steal the wood, which in that setting means they are at least thinking of committing a felony. I agree with your previous suggestion that he could have said "sorry, can't help you", but not sure what there next move would have been. I don't think there is anything wrong with saying that. But it only resolves the situation if they decide not to continue.
"No". Keep pumping gas.
If they rake some wood, call the police on your cell phone. Take their picture. "How much wood could two guys pluck if the two guys did pluck wood?"
Based on your scenario they never threatened you only threatened to steal your property. Let the police handle it, to pull a weapon on someone for being rude might be considered a crime.
No he was not at the last resort.
Try calling the cops
Try carrying intermediate weapons (OC spray)
If they try to stop you from leaving that's when things get serious. Trying to stop me from leaving that would be a bright RED-line.
If you don't need to shoot somebody right now you probably don't need to have a gun in your hand.
I agree with your sentiment, but some of the things that are options in this post were not really options at the point in time of the event. Namely, he did not have a cell phone handy, nor did he have pepper spray. Now I know he should have had both of these things, but he didn't. Its a prime example of how being prepared is a good thing, but there have been times I am sure when any of us have not been prepared.
Given the obvious limitations imposed by his lack of preparedness, what should he have done short of pulling a gun?
I think you could also make a case that even if he did have a cell phone, pulling it out and trying to place a call in the middle of a confrontation where one party is threatening a felony might be a distraction that would put you at a disadvantage.
Can you drive away? At the end of your 20 year sentence for manslaughter ask yourself how much was that scrap wood worth? There are only a few things in this world that cant be replaced.
Balrog said his friend is a small guy, and there were two BGs. Not great odds.
His first mistake is having that Glock under his seat instead of on his hip, he might be better of to pull the gas pump and point it at them from his hip and say "oh really" while reaching carefully for the gun he should have on him.
As soon as someone sketchy approaches and starts to speak, I cut them off with "I'm not interested" while holding my hand up in the "stop" gesture.
Cedar, not scrap. A trailer full of cedar could be worth many thousands, even tens of thousands of dollars in easy to fence lumber. I've no doubt that's why the op's friend was approached. Perhaps he should've tarped over the lumber for the ride. Considering the price of exotic wood these days it's akin to having a small trailer of gold bars behind your vehicle for anyone to see. Same if you had a big load of scrap copper. Seemingly innocuous item makes you a prime target target in the 21st century. Heck even a nice truck and trailer itself can run 100k these days.
Separate names with a comma.