Mindstate when confronting a threat while carrying

[indie]

I just wanted to spark a bit of discussion, about how these situations play out in the real world.

I have seen many people on these forums say that the state of mind to have when making the decision to draw, is once you commit to draw, commit to use deadly force to stop the threat. Because any hesitation can cost you your life.

But I have also noticed most of the people who have had to draw their weapons, dont fire any shots. They have been able to use their weapon as a deterent in a potentially violent confrontation.

I am in the process of getting myself mentally prepared for the responsibility of concealed carry. While I am not at all hesitant to use the necessary force needed to stop a threat, I also do not want to take it beyond what is necessary. And while most people seem to speak, draw and fire. Most people just DRAW, then respond to the threat's reaction to the presentation of the weapon.

Do you believe that drawing and hesitating to fire immediately is the wrong approach?

 

[Erik]

"Do you believe that drawing and hesitating to fire immediately is the wrong approach?"

I believe in drawing before lethal force is immediately necessary when possible, and not hesitating once it is necessary. There is room between those two points, or may be, and using it appropriately for the moment is not wrong.

 

[mgkdrgn]

I have seen many people on these forums say that the state of mind to have when making the decision to draw, is once you commit to draw, commit to use deadly force to stop the threat.

Lets rephrase that to say "you commit to using what ever force is necessary to stop the threat." THAT is the purpose of a CCW. If all the "force" you need to use is a draw to stop the threat, then so be it.

 

[JRG]

If I'm responding to a situation where the bad guy already has a handgun in his hand, then I would draw and shot, otherwise it is a standoff and I could lose as he is slightly ahead of the game. OTOH if it is a situation where say the BG is 30 feet away with a knife, then I might draw and show him that coming any closer might be a bad idea.
I think it totally depends on the situation, where you are, are there people behind the BG, is your family involved, etc etc

 

[JDoe]

I have seen many people on these forums say that the state of mind to have when making the decision to draw, is once you commit to draw, commit to use deadly force to stop the threat. Because any hesitation can cost you your life.

A commitment to use deadly force (if necessary) should come before carrying.

It's also a good idea to think through the aftermath of a defensive shooting. Mourn for your attacker and even yourself in advance, understand that they pulled the trigger through their actions--you just held the gun. Know that you'll likely be arrested, possibly charged, lose your guns and gun rights while things get sorted out. You may have to suffer through court and spend thousands of dollars defending yourself. Then if you escape any criminal convictions you may have to defend yourself against civil suits brought by the attackers family. Your arrest and the news articles about you will follow you around for the rest of your life. Even if you don't get convicted the arrest record may negatively affect your chosen career. You might suffer for the rest of your life from various psychological reactions to the shooting including PTSD which is a kind of hell unimaginable to anyone except those that suffer from it. Friends or relatives of the attacker might seek revenge as well...

Norman Borden refused to be the victim of a hate crime. When gang members tried to attack him, he killed two in self-defense. Police arrested him and as he awaited trial his four dogs were euthanized and gang members burned down his house.

He was arrested after the shooting, held in jail for 8 months and then released after jurors agreed that Borden’s use of deadly force was justified, acquitting him of two counts of first-degree murder, one count of attempted murder and one count of shooting into an occupied vehicle.

These are a few of the reasons that the last thing I want to ever do is shoot someone in self defense.

But I have also noticed most of the people who have had to draw their weapons, don't fire any shots. They have been able to use their weapon as a deterrent in a potentially violent confrontation.

Most? Drawing a weapon without firing a shot is illegal in some areas and called brandishing. If you ever draw a weapon and the threat is stopped without firing a shot make sure you are the first one calling the police to report it. You don't want your potential attacker making an accusation that you were trying to rob them.

Do you believe that drawing and hesitating to fire immediately is the wrong approach?

It kind of depends on the situation and your training. I can't emphasize the importance of training strongly enough. Training will show you things about yourself and the world that you could never imagine or prepare for except through training.

Have a look at How Close is Too Close. Hesitating when threatened by a harmless looking ordinary Joe or Jane armed with a knife can get you killed or gravely injured in a couple of seconds.

But there are situations where ones training and the situation don't call for one to shoot like the ex-Lebanese soldier that was CCing in a Michigan bank when some poor dumb sorry loser attempted to rob it. I think that guys life experience and training in these matters exceeds anything I could hope or want to achieve. In similar circumstances I'd just let the robber walk out of the bank with the money. Heck, I wouldn't know an explosive vest from a fishing vest (I'm no hero either.)

In an FBI report on Cop Attackers and their Weapons the mindset of the attackers is chilling.

"They can go from riding down the street saying what a beautiful day it is to killing in the next instant.”

“Offenders typically displayed no moral or ethical restraints in using firearms,”

"...street combat veterans (the bad guys) survived by developing a shoot-first mentality."
​

If faced with the immediate threat of death or grave injury to myself or another innocent person from an attacker, I believe that drawing and hesitating to fire immediately is the wrong approach and that the right approach in such a situation is to shoot without hesitating until the threat stops. Once the threat stops it is no longer a self defense situation and you stop shooting.

 

[strambo]

You have it backwards I believe. They draw intending to fire immediately, then react to the threats running away/disengaging. If the criminal kept doing what necessitated the draw, a bullet would have followed when the gun got to extension. Most criminals decide they don't want to die for your wallet or TV.

Drawing a gun and not firing is not brandishing provided you were in fear for your life when you drew. If 1/2 second later, the threat turns and runs, then you put the gun away when you feel safe again.

 

[Fred Fuller]

indie,

Have you read Jeff Cooper's Principles of Personal Defense yet? ( http://www.paladin-press.com/product/772/27 )

It's best to start with first things first... the learning curve will mostly be whatever you make it, but getting ahead of yourself will not help you.

Take a look at the following- this is what you are preparing yourself to do:

YOU HAVE RESOLVED TO BE THE ULTIMATE MORAL ARBITER!

YOU HAVE TAKEN IT UPON YOURSELF TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT A SET OF RAPIDLY EVOLVING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND DECIDE THAT THEY MEAN SOMEONE SHOULD HAVE LETHAL FORCE USED ON THEM AND YOU NEED TO DO IT.

As a person who carries weapons about in society you have decided that you are a moral arbiter.

You are obliged to prepare yourself physically, mentally, emotionally and morally for the role as a moral arbiter.

You are obliged to train your body, mind and spirit for your role as moral arbiter.

Failure to accept and exercise these obligations is an exercise in immorality. It is a failure of discipline and self-control.
- http://www.teddytactical.com/archive/MonthlyStudy/2007/02_StudyDay.htm

There's a lot more at that link, and it's important. I suggest you read it all, carefully.

Read that second statement copied above again. You are preparing yourself as an armed citizen to look at a rapidly evolving set of facts and circumstances, and make appropriate decisions as to your subsequent actions based on what you observe.

Simple sentence, HUGE responsibility.

It isn't as easy as having your mind made up in advance what you will do if X happens, because there is no way to know what sort of situation you will be faced with, or how it will evolve. There is often no single decision- there may be a series of decisions that must be made based on evolving circumstances.

What you have to do is establish firmly in your mind what your state law says about use of deadly force in self defense, what the actual application of that law entails in common practice in your jurisdiction, and what the clear, precise, demonstrable 'trigger points' are that shift you from 'no shoot' to 'shoot'. It is a generally bad idea to brandish a gun, if you are to be justified in drawing, you need to be very near the point of being justified in shooting as well.

It takes time, and training, to get all this down. Don't rush- just do the work.

Stay Safe,

lpl

 

[Hook686]

Personally I've decided if the situation has digressed to the point I've decided to draw, it is at a point of very serious and lethal threat to me. My draw and fire is essentially all one motion in this situation.

I too have pondered how folks in a life threatening situation were able to draw but not fire. My conclusion has always been, 'well it must not have been as life threatening as originally stated.'

 

[Rifleman 173]

Drawing a firearm to me means that a person is getting ready to shoot. That is the last step and last chance to quickly review what is about to happen. So there you are. The bad guy is advancing at you threatening to kill you, cut you and your family into cube steaks so you draw your gun and he stops... The bad guy stopped because he saw you draw your gun. At that point in time and situation you've won the fight. No need to go any farther. He was threatening and trying to intimidate you but when you drew your gun everything took a 180 degree turn on the bad guy. Now he is intimidated and under the threat. Now he has to worry about dying. So why shoot at that point? There is no need to shoot. Where things get dicey is when or if the dirtbag tries to jump you to get your gun away from you. At that point the option to not shoot no longer exists and the terminal stupidity of the bad guy becomes permanent and he dies.

 

[crankshop1000]

"Do you believe that drawing and hesitating to fire immediately is the wrong approach?"

What could be better than using your weapon when needed to difuse a situation and no one gets hurt?

Just because you may be prepared to fire your weapon when you pull it, does not mean you have to.

 

[Hook686]

21 feet and you get cut ... how many altercations that put fear of lethal threat in you happen outside 21 feet ? Inside 21 feet if you hesitate I think you are dead. Outside 21 feet and I think if you draw you end up in court.

Are you folks really advocating drawing on people outside a distance of 21 feet from you ? Are you promoting hesitating when an agressor is inside 21 feet ?

 

[Loosedhorse]

It's not just no draw, draw, or shoot--

There are other options, gradations of response. I have arranged my carry so that it is VERY easy for me to have a grip on my gun while the gun is still in its holster and concealed. I have practiced (safely, at home and at the range) removing the gun form the holster while keeping it hidden, so that it can be re-holstered again if the situation so dictates, with no one the wiser.

Around here producing a firearm to alter another's behavior (that includes getting an aggressor to back-down) is in fact brandishing. You may not be convicted, but you are in prime position to be arrested--and that arrest without conviction, or even if acquitted, will likely result in permanent loss of CCW.

I would say, don't hesitate to "almost" draw, or to draw and remain concealed. I would only present the firearm (with the loud words "DROP THE WEAPON!") if I was in condition red (and about to get black). And then, even if you don't fire, call the police (before someone calls them on you)--always better to be the complainant than the suspect.

And don't forget your other hand should have produced a tactical light or OC by now!

Good luck.

 

[Erik]

Hook, are you advocating calculating a distance, and taking action based upon your answer? Probably not, which is the answer to your question. The "21 foot rule" in going the way of the dodo bird, by the way, with training moving away from it for a variety of reasons, beginning with its emphasis on distance in lieu of threat indicators and ending with the challenges it presents in court. But that's probably best left for another thread.

Loosedhorse,
The four colors don't include "black." Red is where you decide to fight, or not, as appropriate. Again, probably or another thread.
http://www.frfrogspad.com/color.htm

---

But... they're germain to this thread in that they speak to the decision making process regarding when to fight or not, specifically when to shoot.

 

[Byron Quick]

They have been able to use their weapon as a deterent in a potentially violent confrontation.

No, the defender does not use his weapon as a deterrent. His opponent(s) perceived the weapon as a deterrent. Semantics? No, it is a difference that the defender has absolutely no control over.

I drew one day to low ready in a situation where I did not need to fire immediately. When the two intruders fighting each other in my living room noticed that I was doing more than just standing there in horrified amazement, they fled the scene and began fighting each other again down the block. But I did not use my weapon as a deterrent. I drew my weapon knowing I might have to use potentially lethal forced against a fellow human being. The intruders decided my weapon was a deterrent. I had nothing to do with their decision even though I was grateful for it.

21 feet and you get cut ...

Sorry. From real world experience, I've always taken the Tueller Drill with a couple of pounds of salt. I'm not that fast. Average, if that.
Was talking with a customer in his garage/shop one night about the imminent repossession of his washing machine. The conversation was amicable, no upset, and no indication things were about to go south. We were no more than five feet apart. There was a tool chest to his immediate right with a row or bags of nails across the top compartment just above waist level. Suddenly he grabbed the sledge hammer handle concealed behind the bags of nails and swung downwards to my skull while taking one step forward. Big problem for him, though, as my skull wasn't there any more. I had gotten off of the line of attack by taking as big a step as I could with my right foot to my right rear oblique (45 degrees). I was now four feet away from the sledge hammer handle, five or more feet away from him and had swept my cover garment, hit the thumbstrap, and was pulling the pistol. I would be pressing the trigger the instant I had a sight picture. My assailant realized that I was drawing a handgun from my actions, realized I'd have it out before he could reach me, and dropped the sledge hammer handle.

He stopped his attack and I stopped my defense. I didn't use my weapon as a deterrent. He was deterred at a point where I could halt my defense. If he had dropped that handle as I acquired a sight picture, he would have probably been shot at least once.

But if you train to get off of the line of attack as a knife or impact weapon gets close then the distance limits of the Tueller Drill don't hold for you. The Tueller Drill really is only relevant if your feet are nailed to the floor or you have neglected to train as you should.

According to the Tueller Drill, my skull should have been crushed by the sledge hammer handle. Not even close though it would have been if I had followed the scenario of the Tueller Drill and just stood there while trying to draw my pistol.

Now you won't learn how to get off the line of attack from an assailant using a weapon at a martial arts school that doesn't train with weapons. All martial arts schools are not equal. This is not a dig at martial arts schools that don't train with weapons. It's simply noticing that if you train with different foci then you get different results. I was fortunate enough to train in a system where not only did the students train with hand weapons but you also trained where the opponent had the club and you didn't.
If you stayed in the fight, you did a lot of evading until, and unless, your opponent made a mistake.

The Tueller Drill's 21 foot rule is true, but only if you just stand there waiting to get cut while trying to draw. Caveat: the time to figure out how to effectively evade a knife or club is not when you're frantically trying to draw your pistol before the knife or club makes contact with your precisious butt. Believe me, this will make for a bad outcome. For you.

I can't give pertinent advice on brandishing as there are no such laws in my state nor have I ever lived in a state where there were such laws. I will repeat, once again, know the laws relating to the use of handguns in your state and in any state you will visit.

 

[ctdonath]

Regarding the "black" stage...

Having studied under both Cooper and Ayoob, I observe that one was a soldier and the other a cop.
The soldier operates on one set of principles, particularly that ANY immediate threat MUST be put down NOW. Hence, Cooper's view of "red" (immediate threat, shut it down).
The cop operates on a different set of principles, particularly the de-escalation imperative. Hence, Ayoob's view of "red" (immediate threat, draw, demand compliance and/or de-escalate and/or disengage) as separate from "black" (actual assault, shut it down).

These differ most simply over whether "threat = assualt" or "threat < assault".

Both are valid, just different ways of deciding how to weigh the odds of "by 6" vs. "by 12".

 

[Biker]

Byron...Out of curiosity, what hand did sledge hammer-boy - left or right - use to strike at you?

Biker

 

[XDKingslayer]

Do you believe that drawing and hesitating to fire immediately is the wrong approach?

Yes.

Hesitation kills. Usually you.

If you are hesitating before firing then you have a problem. You either are second guessing your abilities, second guessing your stand point of being in the right, or you don't have it in you.

All of these are a problem.

The soldier operates on one set of principles, particularly that ANY immediate threat MUST be put down NOW. Hence, Cooper's view of "red" (immediate threat, shut it down).

One of the few things I agree with Copper on...

 

[NonConformist]

You only use the force thats necessary!

That could be the mere presentation of a firearm w/ voice commands, or it could be a shoot

Depends totally on the threat, how close, numbers, armed and with what etc; and your perception of their intention, IE just to rob or to kill etc;

 

[Byron Quick]

Biker,

He was right handed. The tool chest was immediately to his right.

Do you believe that drawing and hesitating to fire immediately is the wrong approach?

It depends totally on the situation you are facing. In the first situation, I posted above, I was drawing upon intruders in my home. One guy with a bloody face came to my screen door in the spring asking to use the phone to call the cops. While he was doing so his assailant burst through my door attacking him again. They were destroying my property but had not attacked or threatened me. I drew to low ready and was admittedly attempting to use the weapon as an inducement for them to leave my house. However, I was fully aware that the decision to leave was their decision and that if they decided to attack me instead then I would have to use the weapon.

In the other, the time elapsed was probably under a second, he attacked, I evaded while clearing my coat, hitting the thumbstrap, and beginning to draw the pistol. At that point, he dropped the sledge hammer handle and I stopped drawing the pistol. If he'd been as much as a half second slower in dropping that club then he would have probably gotten shot as I would have fired immediately upon acquiring a good sight picture.

And I wasn't hesitating people, I was reacting to what was happening. Things can happen within the time it takes to draw.
Guess what? You are still legally responsible for what your actions are within that small timespan.

 

[Byron Quick]

just to rob or to kill etc;

NonConformist,

That might make a difference in the decision to use lethal force in Florida but it is not a universal statement applicable to all fifty states in the US.

In Georgia, if you're trying to rob someone then you'd best do it without using force or even the threat of force. It is legal in Georgia to use lethal force to stop a forcible felony. A forcible felony is defined by Georgia statute as any felony using force, or the threat of force.

In other words, some robber can go into a stop and rob and give the clerk a note that says,"I have a gun, give me all the money."
The clerk can then justifiably employ lethal force against that person. Whether that person does, in fact, have a gun on his person is immaterial.

You only use the force thats necessary!

People, I know you hear such as quoted above a lot on the internet. I know that it or similar is taught at many schools. Only one big problem with it. It is only true in some states.

A universally true statement for the US would be: You can only use the level of force for the situation which is mandated by statute for the state where you are when that situation occurs.

Now that's bit more unwieldy than"You can only use the force that's necessary!" and takes time, research, and study to ascertain but, believe me, doing so will serve you better.

There are situations in Georgia where you can legally use lethal force against unarmed persons who present no threat to you.

 

[NonConformist]

Im talking perception, nothing more

AFA Im concerned if you pull a weapon or gun, or bat etc, you're gonna get dropped unless you immediatley stop, assuming I have time to warn. if not, well doom on you dirtbag!

Florida is the same way, castle doctrine too! And that includes ANYWHERE i have a right to be

 

[Fred Fuller]

Nonconformist,

Please go to http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=205304 and read carefully.

No matter where you are, no matter what jurisdiction you are in, you need to be able to clearly enunciate whatever reasons you had for employing deadly force, and those reasons have to be in line with the law and the standards of conduct in that jurisdiction.

lpl

 

[Byron Quick]

Perception is good. Especially coupled with a knowledge of state law.

Have you read the actual Florida code? If not, you should. And clarify any questions with a criminal defense attorney or send a query to the Florida attorney general.

I'm not saying you're wrong in your assessment of Florida law, I'm just re-emphasizing that people should go directly to their state code and read it for themselves and then get clarification from attorneys on any questions they have.

It's like that quote about carrying,"It's not the odds, it's the stakes."

Saying,"But I believed the law meant this," won't help you at all if you mess up.

What I'm trying to get across is this: Having read the posts of 10,000 people who maintain the law means such and such, and having read hundreds of newspaper articles maintaining that anyone can shoot anyone who gives them a mean look in Florida now just means squat. Have you read the law, printed by a reputable source, for yourself? Have you clarified questions with a knowledgeable attorney?

If not, you might wish you had.

 

[Deus Machina]

Best you can do is know your state's laws.

According to Florida law (IANAL, I'm quoting an officer), if you're in a situation where you're justified to shoot someone and they stop after seeing the gun, before getting shot, it's not considered brandishing. And IMO, the 'must shoot' law in some states is a stupid solution to keep stupid people from flashing their guns.

But you should draw with every intent on ventilating the BG. And if he immediately stops the attack before you can shoot, he saved himself. Remember, he's forcing you, at threat of death, to pull the trigger, and changing his mind only benefits him in next few seconds.

If it were me, and I had the luxury of about two seconds, I'd draw, announce "STOP." and give him just that long to so I could gauge his reaction. Talk him down if I could, but don't make any comments you can't back up.

No "If you take one step closer-- I mean it. Stop there. Seriously, stop coming closer."

But never draw expecting the luxury of that extra second.

 

[Cesiumsponge]

Case we covered in class:

Man is an injured war vet with a bad back and a 5-year old child in the car. Road rage incident. Road rage guy gets out of his car and starts approaching the vet using all sorts of threats. The vet exits the car and brandishes, but does not point the firearm. Prosecutor wanted to charge him with brandishing but the case was ultimately dropped.

The vet used the eggshell skull doctrine to illustrate disparity of force whereby his physical condition would give him a very bad handicap in a physical scuffle, and he had a 5-year old child to defend. He couldn't point the firearm at the individual because it wasn't quite at that point of being a victim of a deadly force attack. Yet, he had to prepare himself and brandishing was the only reasonable means for this particular situation.

It's all on a case-to-case basis. There are no hard and fast guarantees in law which is why our legal system is processed by people, and not robots and computers.