Man threatened with pliers is charged after drawing

[imas]

Beavercreek police call it a case of parking-lot rage.

Friday, Jason Wapler went to court on charges that he pointed a gun at a man outside the Fairfiield Commons Mall.

The fight involved two men, two vehicles and a parking lot.

Investigators said Wapler and a 54-year-old man began arguing, and the other man pulled out a pair of pliers.

Police said Wapler had a permit to carry a concealed weapon and when his tempe r flared , he pulled out his gun and pointed it at the other man .

http://www.whiotv.com/news/9208834/detail.html

It is impossible to say what REALLY happened during this incident. The CCW holder may have lost his temper or he may have just been trying to defend himself from a man who was out of control. Heck its possible that it could have been a wrench or a large pair of lineman's pliers. The media doesn't
really care about details like that when they can make CCW look bad.

What do you think? Draw on a guy making threats with a pair of pliers?

I'd say probably not but it would depend on the situation and the person threatening me. (not to mention the size of the "pliers")

 

[joab]

What do you think? Draw on a guy making threats with a pair of pliers?

My step father used a pair of Klines todefend himself against two men.
they made a very effective even deadly club.
One of the men had a lot fewer teeth and the other had many stitches at the end of the encounter,
He won the fight and the court case.

A pair of lineman pliers in the hands of a man used to having them in his hands is a very dangerous weapon.

A pair of Wal-Mart slip joints would probably not be as formidable.

As far as being enraged
come at any of us with a weapon intent on doing harm and see how irritable we can get.

 

[Cosmoline]

Sounds like a political prosecution and political reporting. Not too surprising given the location. From what I hear there are a lot of powerful people in Ohio who want to lean east, if you know what I mean.

 

[imas]

It might be worth mentioning that our area has had 3 malls for many years.

- Mall at Fairfield Commons: The one that this incident took place at. (the one that seems to be going downhill)
- The Dayton Mall: I normally try to avoid going to because of all the wannabe thugs.
- The Salem Mall: The one I would never visit under any cirucumstance. (LOTS of crime)

Well they tore down the Salem Mall. So naturally the hoodlems have gravitated toward the Dayton Mall. (crime there has skyrocketed) So I'm not going there anymore. With this mall going down hill the wannabe thugs have started hanging out at the Fairfield Mall. It's still nice but I see it continuing to go down hill. One thing that has helped is the lack of public transportation. Beavercreek refused to let the RTA put stops in. Good decision IMHO.

Fortunately there is a new mall under construction and should open this summer. Also the Salem Mall is supposed to be rebuilt so maybe it will go back to being a drug pit and give the snakes somewhere to go.

I don't want to sound like a snob. I just want my mall to stay clean and friendly for my children. As long as you can shop without stealing, dealing drugs, or causing trouble you're welcome at my mall.

 

[CraigJS]

You can have a temper, you can have a gun, you CAN'T HAVE BOTH !!

 

[carebear]

Hey, once they pull the pair of pliers, it's on.

Cause the next thing coming out is a blowtorch and then things start getting medieval.

Seriously though, if "linesman's pliers" are those big honking needlenose ones, that's a weapon that can put a neat hole in your skull or chest.

I can picture the courtroom demo I'd have my lawyer do to demonstrate the threat right now.

And the police statement is bunk as they seem to agree with the stated chain of events. The accused didn't pull the gun because "he was mad about the parking space", he apparently pulled the gun because the old guy pulled a weapon first.

All this depending on what little info has been presented of course.

Sure pays to know a good defense lawyer I guess. I sure as heck wouldn't let some ignorant public defender handle my case without serious input from me on self-defense law and tactics.

Glad I took LFI-1, so, as long as I'm in the right, I won't have quite so many issues to contend with.

 

[Biker]

Used to ride with a guy - little bastard - who carried a pair of regular ol' pliers around with him in his hip pocket. Someone mess with him a bit too much, and he'd whip out his pliers and latch onto the bad-guy's belly fat (we all have some). That man was in his complete control. Give it a try on yourself, I'm serious as a fatal heart attack.
Biker

 

[R.H. Lee]

Obsiously the CCW holder didn't follow the established protocol for escalation of force. First he shoulda pulled out, I dunno, a ball peen hammer so the attacker would have a chance to then pull out a knife whereupon the CCW holder would properly draw his firearm.

 

[joab]

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...mages?q=lineman+plier&svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&sa=N
Lineman plier such as these are as heavy and effective as a blackjack but have those neat little bone nd tissue destroying sharp metal edges

 

[Jim March]

You only need a 3" blade stabbing to the chest to kill a man. A lot of the small needle-nose pliers can stab that deep or more.

I once pulled a knife on a mugger armed with a 12" wrench, who made a hasty retreat. I don't feel the least bit sorry (and I'm glad he decided on that outcome).

The least dangerous pliers I can imagine would still make a horrible hand-held head-wacker.

 

[deadin]

It takes two to have an argument. Both should have been charged.
Another thing. I was taught that if the threat is serious enough to pull, it's serious enough to shoot. If you just pull and threaten, you're just showing off and it can get you killed.

Dean

 

[the 22 junkie]

Then why is it that 99% of all defensive encounters end without a shot fired? Are 99% of us doing it wrong or something? Are you trying to say it would be better to go through the stress, legal trouble, and possible limelight from shooting a man rather than scare them off? Besides, the less shots fired, the better, as you and you alone are responsible for those bullets.

 

[deadin]

Man with pliers, man with a baseball bat, man with a knife, man with a gun. If you are truely in fear for your life, you will pull and shoot. Anything less is either lack of training, determination or macho crap.

Dean

 

[Gifted]

I don't really want to shoot someone. As long as I'm not afraid of the next step, I'd try to give the other guy a chance to de-escelate if possible. There may not be an opportunity to do that, but the mere threat is usually enough. Scare the guy off, and report the incident to the cops. Guy who calls in first will generally be believed.

 

[deadin]

I'm just saying that you won't know if you are "not afraid of the next step" until you have actually pulled the trigger. Any hesitation could be fatal.
(Check out the guy in the Tacoma Mall)

Dean

 

[Soybomb]

Man with pliers, man with a baseball bat, man with a knife, man with a gun. If you are truely in fear for your life, you will pull and shoot. Anything less is either lack of training, determination or macho crap.

I really look at it the other way with "if you have to pull you have to shoot" as being nothing more than a catchy phrase. Only pull if you're willing to shoot, but if the other person stops during the draw, or drops their weapon, or retreats you'd be quite sorry if you pulled the trigger I think. I believe if you think that if you pull you must shoot is going to increase the possibility of you either hesitating to draw, or shooting someone who ceased to be in need of being shot during the draw. I think most situations would be far too dynamic to have 1 rule that works for all of them ymmv.

 

[Jim March]

Such "chase offs" happen when you're absolutely determined to defend yourself and they make it no longer necessary.

What are you supposed to do, shoot 'em in the back? Or chase 'em down the street? Heck no.

You don't draw to threaten, absolutely not, in fact it's not the weapon that makes them run, it's your absolute stone-cold determination to kill 'em deader'n'Elvis that makes predators turn into practitioners of Nike-kwan-do. It even works on dogs in my experience and you can't tell me they know what a 5.5" blade knife is. Human predators are no different. It's the person who is the threat, not the weapon. It's the fact that you're NOT bluffing that causes the situation to de-escalate.

It's a paradox. The guy absolutely willing to kill is less likely to need to do so.

 

[BigO01]

Well you know a pair of Channel Locks are considered Pliers , and I have seen and used some pretty darn big Channel locks and if someone were thretening me with them in their hand , I wouldn't hesitate to draw a gun on them .

 

[joab]

I forgot about those plumbers Channel Locks, I've got a pair that could kill with one blow.

I'm just saying that you won't know if you are "not afraid of the next step" until you have actually pulled the trigger. Any hesitation could be fatal.
(Check out the guy in the Tacoma Mall)

the guy in the Tacoma Mall hesitated against an AK, or at least a gun,

The dynamics of a defensive situation can change in the blink of an eye, you had better be able to think faster than that if you want to survive the encounter and it's aftermath.

You shoot to end a threat
If the guy with the pliers, or whatever, does anything to indicate that he is no longer a threat you have no right or reason to shoot.

There are DAs out there now actively looking for CCWs to prosecute, don't give them the satisfaction

 

[NukemJim]

It's a paradox. The guy absolutely willing to kill is less likely to need to do so

+1

NukemJim

 

[Erebus]

The 54-year-old man pulled out a pair of pliers.

Police said that is when Wapler pulled out a loaded gun and pointed it right at him.

Police said it doesn't matter if Wapler was mad about a parking spot or another kind of parking lot problem -- pulling out a pistol was not the answer.

These statements seem to be in direct contradiction to each other. Did he pull the pistol because he was mad or in responce to the other man pulling a pair of pliers/a weapon? Just because he may have been angry doesn't automatically mean he was wrong.

What I don't understand is if pulling the pistol was criminal why wasn't pulling the pliers as well? Are the pliers automatically assumed to not be a weapon until after they have been used as a weapon? If you are threatened with an object that isn't normally used as a weapon do you have to wait until after it is used as a weapon to respond to it as a weapon? If the guy had pulled a knife or baseball bat instead of pliers would it have been diffrent?

 

[Redstick]

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]You don't draw to threaten, absolutely not, in fact it's not the weapon that makes them run, it's your absolute stone-cold determination to kill 'em deader'n'Elvis that makes predators turn into practitioners of Nike-kwan-do. Elvis is NOT dead!

 

[Art Eatman]

Once again we're speculating from way too little information. There's no mention of the origin of the squabble. There's no description of the pliers, to know how much of a weapon they could be. Needle-nose pliers can be used to puncture; heavy pliers can be used to strike.

Folks, when you run across no-info news articles like this, don't waste bandwidth on them, okay? This might in some manner be on topic, but it's a pointless thread.

You can always set up your own scenario for the S&T forum.

Art

 

[deadin]

Jim March's argument is the most valid I have seen and I may have to change my stand to agree with it. However, I still contend that all of the determination and intent in the world isn't worth a warm bucket of spit until you have actually "pulled the trigger" at least once. So, until you've done it, you really won't know if you can. Talk about a paradox.

The dynamics of a defensive situation can change in the blink of an eye, you had better be able to think faster than that if you want to survive the encounter and it's aftermath.

Really fast. I think there was a study that showed 21 feet was the minimum distance that you had better "make up your mind" to stop the threat against an knife or club. If you are face to face and have something pulled on you, there is no time. You either shoot or run. (and running means you've lost the argument or parking space, etc. ) (of course by running, you probably will have saved yourself from bodily harm and only your ego will be bruised.)

On the other side of "carrying" and "pulling". I get the definite feeling (from reading some of the posts on gun boards) that there are a lot of folks out there carrying for the wrong reasons. They will say it's for personal protection. I say a lot of it is for posturing and bragging rights. Carrying is a very personal and private decision. Ask me if I'm carrying and I will tell you it's none of your frigging business. (Unless you are a LEO or such). It seems to me that some are carrying to make up for some unperceived inadequacy and are having a real problem with the fact that "concealed" means just that, "concealed". They would carry open if the law allowed it, just to show that "my gun is bigger and better than your gun". Seeing as how "showing" is considered illegal in many places, they have no outlet other than to talk about it. Carrying is nobody's business but your own, unless you are trying to impress someone.
(I liken it to the codpieces that were once the rage in men's fashion. )

Dean

 

[Tim Burke]

"Pliers? Oh. I thought it was a silver pistol..."
Of course, if the guy with the gun started the confrontation, he's probably in trouble regardless.