Mindset in a Broad Sense

[Kleanbore]

Most definitions of self defense describe it as the justified use of force in the defense of oneself. The defense of others is often mentioned, but in law, that is usually listed as a separate jusifcation. One of the most important concepts related to self defense has to do with the defensive mind-set. That is usually described in such terms as awareness and avoidance, of preparation for the use of force, of the realization that danger may exist, and of willingness to use force, if necessary, to avoid harm.

All good, but I suggest that we should expand the definition of mind-set to include the mental preparation to do more than just avoiding danger or defend ourselves. I think we should add the subjects of (1) avoiding a bad legal outcome, and of (2) avoiding harm to others.

For the first of these, I think we should discard whole the idea of "winning a gunfight". I think that phrase implies the doing in of the other participant(s). Here's the problem with that: the threat or use of deadly force may be justified, if it is immediately neceeary to defend against an imminent deadly force attack, provided, of course, that the defender did not provoke or initiate the confrontation. "Imminent"means happening right now, or just about to happen. But we have to realize that the wind of imminence can close very, very quickly, eliminating any justification for the use of deadly force.

We have seen too many incidents in which a defender fired his weapon when immediately necessary and was justified in doing so, and than fired again after a few moments, to find the second burst of fire deemed unlawful. The incriminating evidence came from audio recordings and earwitness testimony.

Here's the thing: we may shoot to prevent harm to ourselves, but not because someone has fired upon us and is therefore a "bad guy", when the fight is over Our objective is not to "win a gunfight".

Keep that in mind if shots are fired from a passing car. Do not shoot at it as it departs.

The second subject involves trying our best to comply with the good old rules of gun safety, even when we are engaged in a rapidly unfolding violent incident. We need to know what is between us and our target, what is behind it, and who is likely to move--and where.

Before I had ever availed myself of any defensive training, I was involved in a defensive gun use incident in a store. I'm not sure just what ran through my mind, but I immediately assessed who in the store and where, where they ight move, and what could serve as a backstop. I moved accordingly, and fortunately, my movement resulted in the rapid departure of the would-be robber. No shotes were fired, and I did not draw.

Let's be carful out there.

 

[jmorris]

I think we should discard whole the idea of "winning a gunfight". I think that phrase implies the doing in of the other participant(s).

I have always looked at winning as not losing. I have won many contests and never "did in" any fellow competitors.

We need tp know what is between us and our target, what is behind it, and who is likely to move--and where.

I agree but that is not always possible, even if you pre plan. There would never be a "plan B" if things always played out as we hoped, wished or needed them to.

If we knew where every threat was, when it was going to move and where it would be going at that point, that in itself could make it much less of a threat. Making that information very valuable because, even if we don't have all of that information, we are still responsible for every round we fire.

 

[Kleanbore]

I have always looked at winning as not losing. I have won many contests and never "did in" any fellow competitors.

This is not about competition.

However. one's competition mindset can lead to serious trouble in a defensive incident.

If we knew where every threat was, when it was going to move and where it would be going at that point, that in itself could make it much less of a threat.

I was speaking of bystanders. vs the threat '"target").

 

[scaatylobo]

Most definitions of self defense describe it as the justified use of force in the defense of oneself. The defense of others is often mentioned, but in law, that is usually listed as a separate jusifcation. One of the most important concepts related to self defense has to do with the defensive mind-set. That is usually described in such terms as awareness and avoidance, of preparation for the use of force, of the realization that danger may exist, and of willingness to use force, if necessary, to avoid harm.

All good, but I suggest that we should expand the definition of mind-set to include the mental preparation to do more than just avoiding danger or defend ourselves. I think we should add the subjects of (1) avoiding a bad legal outcome, and of (2) avoiding harm to others.

For the first of these, I think we should discard whole the idea of "winning a gunfight". I think that phrase implies the doing in of the other participant(s). Here's the problem with that: the threat or use of deadly force may be justified, if it is immediately neceeary to defend against an imminent deadly force attack, provided, of course, that the defender did not provoke or initiate the confrontation. "Imminent"means happening right now, or just about to happen. But we have to realize that the wind of imminence can close very, very quickly, eliminating any justification for the use of deadly force.

We have seen too many incidents in which a defender fired his weapon when immediately necessary and was justified in doing so, and than fired again after a few moments, to find the second burst of fire deemed unlawful. The incriminating evidence came from audio recordings and earwitness testimony.

Here's the thing: we may shoot to prevent harm to ourselves, but not because someone has fired upon us and is therefore a "bad guy", when the fight is over Our objective is not to "win a gunfight".

Keep that in mind if shots are fired from a passing car. Do not shoot at is as it departs.

The second subject involves trying our best to comply with the good old rules of gun safety, even when we are engaged in a rapidly unfolding violent incident. We need tp know what is between us and our target, what is behind it, and who is likely to move--and where.

Before I had ever availed myself of any defensive training, I was involved in a defensive gun use incident in a store. I'm not sure just what rn through my mind, but I immediately assessed who in the store was where, where they ight move, and what could serve as a backstop. I moved accordingly, and fortunately, my movement resulted in the rapid departure of the would-be robber. No shotes were fired, and I did not draw.

Let's be carful out there.

And do note that Mike Tyson had the best comment about ANY confrontation.
" Everyone has a plan , till they get punched in the mouth".
The only fight you will win,hands down ----- is the one you avoided.

 

[Ethan Verity]

...
Before I had ever availed myself of any defensive training, I was involved in a defensive gun use incident in a store. I'm not sure just what rn through my mind, but I immediately assessed who in the store was where, where they ight move, and what could serve as a backstop. I moved accordingly, and fortunately, my movement resulted in the rapid departure of the would-be robber. No shotes were fired, and I did not draw.

Is it a "defensive gun use" when you don't even have to draw your gun?

 

[Kleanbore]

Is it a "defensive gun use" when you don't even have to draw your gun?

That's an intriguing question. I think the answer is maybe yes, maybe no, and--it doesn't really matter.

In the event, I moved to engage the would-be robberer, my movement caused him to flee, and I would never have so moved had I been unarmed and not making ready to draw. You decide.

But--consider this: some decades ago, people were being charged with and convicted of aggravated assault--making a threat with a deadly weapon--without ever having drawn or displayed their firearm.

 

[Kleanbore]

The only fight you will win,hands down ----- is the one you avoided.

Yes indeed!

 

[Jeff White]

I think that the entertainment industry has instilled the "I am obligated to shoot back" mindset into people and we aren't doing enough training on looking at the situation in it's totality. There were a lot of posts in the thread on the effectiveness of handguns on people inside vehicles where members came up with circumstances that would justify firing on a bad guy in a vehicle regardless of how effective of a response that would be. We see it other threads. There is definite mindset that says "shoot". This isn't a bad thing. There are plenty of people alive today because of that mindset. It becomes a bad thing when it overrides the ability to see the totality of the situation you find yourself in. It's not just in the private sector. I see this a lot in law enforcement. Dash cams and body cam video gives the public a view of critical incidents that they've never had before. I recently watched an official LAPD Critical Incident Review of an incident where the officers responded to a man with a gun call. The subject ran from the officers and it escalated to several units following the suspect through busy city streets. At one point "shots fired" came across the radio. One officer who was in his squad a couple hundred yards from the suspect fired several rounds through the windshield (a common trope in action/adventure stories on TV and in the movies). After the suspect was in custody it was discovered that his "gun" was a chrome cigarette light that looked like a Luger. I'm not saying this to say that you should make sure the gun your assailant has is real before firing, I'm saying it to point out that no shots were fired despite the frantic radio call because the suspect was incapable of firing any. The judgement displayed by the officer, who had way more training than the average private citizen was poor. What do you think the odds of hitting a man sized target at 200 yards with a handgun fired through the windshield of a Ford Explorer are? The officer and LA are very fortunate that no bystanders were hit. This is not the only example I've seen.

We train endlessly to get our weapon into action as fast as possible. How much do we train on seeing the situation in it's totality. This is obviously a deficiency in LE training and LE officers get a minimum of 40 hours firearms training and usually much more on use of force training. The average private citizen, even the training junkies (I was one) gets little to no training on this. I think that we need to develop a course on Tactical Decision Making the course would include video simulations ad FoF exercises as well as classroom discussion.

We have to be able to recognize when the situation changes between the time we make the decision to engage and the time we press the trigger. That's also a split second decision. And we have to be able to recognize it through the Adrenalin dump.

There is a young Asian gang member who went to jail instead of the morgue one night when he went into his waistband when I was arresting him on a strong arm robbery. My training kicked in and I was starting to press the trigger on the issue SW 5906 when he pulled his empty hand out of his waistband. Given his lifestyle I have no idea if he is still among the living but he didn't die that afternoon. He easily could have and it would have been within policy and legally justified.

We need to train to think faster then the situation is unfolding.

 

[Kleanbore]

I think that the entertainment industry has instilled the "I am obligated to shoot back" mindset into people and we aren't doing enough training on looking at the situation in it's totality.

My thoughts exactly!

There were a lot of posts in the thread on the effectiveness of handguns on people inside vehicles where members came up with circumstances that would justify firing on a bad guy in a vehicle regardless of how effective of a response that would be. We see it other threads.

in fact, a few of those posts were the inspiration for my comments here.

There is definite mindset that says "shoot". This isn't a bad thing. There are plenty of people alive today because of that mindset. It becomes a bad thing when it overrides the ability to see the totality of the situation you find yourself in.

Yep. I think where people come up short is in knowing when to stop shooting.

 

[Old Dog]

I am not entirely sure of what constitutes the OP's actual thesis statement.

I think we should add the subjects of (1) avoiding a bad legal outcome, and of (2) avoiding harm to others.

(1) is not always possible, given the way our legal system currently works. (2) is more along the lines of using hope as a strategy. If a gunfight occurs, (2) is rarely under your control, presuming that you neither planned nor instigated said gunfight.

It's proven clearly in every aspect of our society that many humans will never learn good decision-making skills

We have to be able to recognize when the situation changes between the time we make the decision to engage and the time we press the trigger.

I used to review use-of-force and use of deadly force video, sometimes for training, sometimes for investigations, sometimes for charges for legal action. On occasion, had opportunities to go over footage with actual participants. Asking questions such as, "What was your mindset here?," "What were you thinking right then?" or "Why did you do [what you did] here?" Any guesses how often the questions could not be answered?

In any event, my tactical decision making priority is to avoid a gunfight. Failing that, it's to survive the gunfight. No one really wins.

 

[Kleanbore]

(1) is not always possible, given the way our legal system currently works.

Nothing is "always possible", but it should be a key objective.

(2) is more along the lines of using hope as a strategy

I do not agree with that.

 

[JohnKSa]

I don't think it's necessary to concern one's self with legal considerations during an actual self-defense encounter. Having the proper mindset will take care of that automatically. The proper mindset is that deadly force is an absolute last resort that is exclusively about stopping a deadly attack in progress, or preventing the imminent commission of a deadly attack. Basically, you only do it so you don't die in the next few seconds.

If one has an improper mindset, then it becomes very important to keep the legal considerations in mind at all times because an improper mindset can introduce goals that are not aligned with the spirit of the law. Examples of improper mindset regarding the legal use of deadly force are:

• It is about punishing bad guys for what they have done.
• It is about taking bad guys off the street.
• It is about revenge.
• It is about killing the attacker.
• It is about making things right.
• It is about enforcing the law.
• It is about winning a competition with the attacker.
• It is about standing up for your rights/making a statement to all the bad guys out there.
• The deadly force laws are a set of instructions for when you can shoot someone without going to prison.

If you have one of these mindsets, or some other mindset beyond preventing your imminent death, then you'd better know the law inside and out, and you'd better keep it at the forefront of your mind during the entire encounter to make sure that you don't overstep and become a murderer or attempted murderer in the eyes of the law.

On the other hand, before and after the encounter, understanding all the legalities is a lot more important. It assures that the defender doesn't say or do something foolish that taints their actions.

 

[GEM]

The training venues that include the contingencies and nuances that are under discussion are rare. One example (which some of us know and were part of) was the National Tactical Invitational. There in well planned FOF, the totality of interaction was engaged. Some trainers like KRtraining.com have put together courses that encompass the entire situation. However, many folks just want shoot'em ups. There is place and it is good for shooting techniques. I like those courses! However, the more complex total scenario ones with associated classroom time, intensive AAR (where you can see how stupid you were) are not that easy to find and time/money intensive.

Good discussion.

 

[scaatylobo]

We train endlessly to get our weapon into action as fast as possible. How much do we train on seeing the situation in it's totality. This is obviously a deficiency in LE training and LE officers get a minimum of 40 hours firearms training and usually much more on use of force training. The average private citizen, even the training junkies (I was one) gets little to no training on this. I think that we need to develop a course on Tactical Decision Making the course would include video simulations ad FoF exercises as well as classroom discussion.

We have to be able to recognize when the situation changes between the time we make the decision to engage and the time we press the trigger. That's also a split second decision. And we have to be able to recognize it through the Adrenalin dump.


We need to train to think faster then the situation is unfolding.

I have to say a LOUD & HUGE Amen to this part of your post.

Far too many who CCW have even a slight clue as to what the outcome of a good shoot will entail.

AND that will last for a lifetime IF it was a good shoot.

It could be the end of your freedom if it was not.

The glory that is portrayed on the screen [ small & large ] is one of he issues.

I have trained too many as an LEO to count [ age does that ] and yet I have seen many copy a TV tactic , to my horror.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

A criminal aggressor must have or reasonably appear to have:

1) ABILITY - the ability to inflict serious bodily injury (e.g., he is armed or reasonably appears to be armed with a deadly weapon; you face multiple unarmed attackers; an unarmed attacker has an obvious, substantial advantage in physical ability and/or skill),

2) OPPORTUNITY - the opportunity to inflict serious bodily harm (he is physically positioned to immediately harm you), and

3) JEOPARDY - his actions are putting you in imminent jeopardy of serious or fatal physical harm, or he is communicating his intent to immediately do so.

When all three of these "attack potential" elements are in place simultaneously, then you are facing a reasonably perceived deadly threat that may justify an emergency deadly force response.

Finally, there's PRECLUSION, which means you have no other reasonable option that prevents you from using deadly force.

All you need to remember is AOJP (Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy, and Preclusion).

 

[Kleanbore]

All you need to remember is AOJP (Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy, and Preclusion).

That's pretty close, but the point of the OP is that AOJP can go on and off like a light switch.

 

[JTHunter]

Here in ILL-ANNOY, costs and requirements for CC are higher than I will tolerate. As a result, I choose NOT to give this state any more of my money than is absolutely necessary. With the age I am now, anybody who forces their way into my home - ANYBODY - will be met with "force". It may not be "deadly force" but that is possible depending on the situation. This is partly because I put a premium on my life over that of anybody making forcible entry.

 

[GEM]

What are the odds of needing a firearm outside your house vs. someone breaking in with force? I don't get it if one truly is worried about SD. Yes, state laws can be obnoxious but so are many state laws and fees.

 

[Kleanbore]

anybody who forces their way into my home - ANYBODY - will be met with "force". It may not be "deadly force" but that is possible depending on the situation. This is partly because I put a premium on my life over that of anybody making forcible entry.

But apparently, people who would car-jack, attack someone in a parking lot, etc. do not have that lesser "premium" on their life.

Go figure.

 

[Indigo22]

Well the life long question of weather a 22LR is enough gun for self defense will go on and on... I have a few thoughts on the subject.
I have been running the CCI Suppressor 22Lr 45gr ammo through my LCP22 with absolute reliability for the last year or so. Is 10+1 enough? Not sure, that is why I carry a spare mag, sometimes two. Stopping power when using a 22Lr relies on hitting the right spot repeatedly with authority. Practice and knowledge results in accuracy when it counts. That is what turns the switch off, lights out, along with the proper penetration. I've been toting mostly a 22 for near 40 years now. Yes, I know it has limitations. That is why I practice and think this stuff through. I can and do practice with regularity. Granted I'm not as good as when I was strong and in my youth. Groups now are hand sized at 15 yards instead of walnut sized, but I can hold my own. A 22LR is what I have with me... all the time. It fits my lifestyle and I am good with that.

 

[Jeff White]

Well the life long question of weather a 22LR is enough gun for self defense will go on and on... I have a few thoughts on the subject.
I have been running the CCI Suppressor 22Lr 45gr ammo through my LCP22 with absolute reliability for the last year or so. Is 10+1 enough? Not sure, that is why I carry a spare mag, sometimes two. Stopping power when using a 22Lr relies on hitting the right spot repeatedly with authority. Practice and knowledge results in accuracy when it counts. That is what turns the switch off, lights out, along with the proper penetration. I've been toting mostly a 22 for near 40 years now. Yes, I know it has limitations. That is why I practice and think this stuff through. I can and do practice with regularity. Granted I'm not as good as when I was strong and in my youth. Groups now are hand sized at 15 yards instead of walnut sized, but I can hold my own. A 22LR is what I have with me... all the time. It fits my lifestyle and I am good with that.

??????? Did you mean to post that in a different thread?

 

[luzyfuerza]

While it is true that A-O-J-P can factually go on and off like a light switch, we cannot forget that reasonableness is an element of all four of these factors.

For example, in the heat of an attack, how quickly can a defender be reasonably expected to respond once A-O-J-P has "expired"? Remember that when this happens a defender has to 1) perceive that a critical element of the situation has changed, 2) process this information, 3) decide that a deadly threat has ceased or that an escape route has opened, and 4) act by instructing a body part like a trigger finger or feet and legs to move (or not to move). These steps all take time, even when trained defenders are acting under ideal circumstances.

Another example: sometimes a defender can't perceive that a threat has ended, even if factually it has. To wit, your opponent has fired five rounds at you from his gun. He is shooting a j-frame, so A-O-J-P has factually "expired". But is it reasonable to expect that a defender will count his opponent's shots? Is it reasonable to expect a defender to determine in the heat and urgency of an attack that the attacker is shooting a five-shot Smith 36 versus a six-shot Model 10? Or a seven-shot 686+? Or an eight-shot 627? Is it even reasonable to expect a defender to determine in the heat of an attack that his attacker is firing a revolver instead of a P365?

For extra credit, does a "click" instead of a "bang" from a revolver always mean that the revolver is empty?


Those who try to determine when legal justification switches "on" or "off" based on video or witness testimony or black-and-white reasoning often forget to consider the very human (and legally critical) element of reasonableness. Unfortunately, we do a lot of this here. It's the habit. We do it because we seldom get to look into the mind of the defender. For sure, the analysis we do here is useful, as long as we never fail to remember that there is a range of justifiable choices that emerges from the legal concept of reasonableness.

The fact is that defenders are the only ones who can describe what they personally knew, saw, felt, perceived, thought, and decided, and their rationale for their actions. And these have to be known in order for others to determine whether a use of deadly force in self-defense or defense of others is legally justified.

 

[Kleanbore]

While it is true that A-O-J-P can factually go on and off like a light switch, we cannot forget that reasonableness is an element of all four of these factors.

Yes indeed.

In the cases that I have reviews in which aa defender continued to use force wen the tiers of fact deemed that the info o of imminence had closed, the judgement was based either on the observation that the attacker was driving away or was lying motionless, or that there was an extended time interval before the last shot.

is it reasonable to expect that a defender will count his opponent's shots?

I sure don't think so.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Force Science research indicates that officers take approximately 0.36 seconds to perceive and react to a stop shooting signal, firing an average of two additional rounds before ceasing fire, even under controlled conditions.

The speed at which an officer recognizes a "stop stimulus" is influenced by factors like the complexity of the situation, the officer's physical and mental state, and training.

These delays in stopping are even more pronounced in real-world, high-stress situations where multiple stimuli are present.

 

[rabid wombat]

Listen to the following (about 10 minutes)… dated… a LOT on mindset with the experience to back it up… it may not be accurate to what is expected today…

Real Gunfighter Lance Thomas

Watchmaker Lance Thomas survives multiple gunfights in LA, great 11m watch.

youtu.be