One assailant, but accomplices?

[allaroundhunter]

Hypothetical situation, but one that I can see as possible:

You are in a bad part of town and are being followed by a group of 3 men. You pick up the pace a little bit, but they keep in step. You turn to address them (ask if they need something or whatever just to try to understand their intentions), and one of them pulls a knife (or any weapon) as his accomplices "encourage" him. You draw and give a warning, but the individual rushes you and you are forced to fire. The threat is stopped, but his accomplices still remain at the scene, and you don't know if they are armed or not.

Obviously, you call 911 immediately, if possible. But what would you do with your weapon, how would you handle the "accomplices"?

Sorry for the drawn-out situation, but being threatened by a group of individuals is one of my "worst-case scenarios" and I am curious as what the best way to handle this would be.

 

[Stacer]

I would reload if necessary, and keep my weapon out, ready for any threat presented.

 

[Dnaltrop]

I believe the more appropriate term would be "accessories to assault, and attempted manslaughter/murder"

(with phone already dialed) "We're waiting for the police, Kindly don't do anything stupid, but if you make one move in my direction I'll continue to defend myself." you might want to add "take your shirt off and put some pressure on that wound before your friend bleeds out" if they continue to stare at you... stunned people appreciate direction.

Then see this thread http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=623115 "What do you say on the phone to 911 after a shooting?"

If you're feeling particularly verbose I suppose you could also tell them that they're under citizen's arrest for the above... but laws vary on that from state to state. some might give you certain protections by doing so. <<< Not a lawyer.

http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/161.255

§ 161.255¹
Use of physical force by private person making citizen’s arrest
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, a private person acting on the person’s own account is justified in using physical force upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to make an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person whom the person has arrested under ORS 133.225 (Arrest by private person).
(2) A private person acting under the circumstances prescribed in subsection (1) of this section is justified in using deadly physical force only when the person reasonably believes it necessary for self-defense or to defend a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force. [1971 c.743 §31; 1973 c.836 §339]

 

[allaroundhunter]

you might want to add "take your shirt off and put some pressure on that wound before your friend bleeds out" if they continue to stare at you... stunned people appreciate direction

My only concern would be that this command would be me telling them to approach a weapon (that the assailant was holding).

 

[Dnaltrop]

At that range and distance, as retreating has not been an option, you'll likely have close access to kicking the weapon away from the assailant's reach. Assuming you've truly incapacitated them. Backing away from the weapon could allow the others to arm themselves. Not a good place to be stuck.

Being outnumbered 2 to 1, much less by a crowd is never easy to deal with, and it's even less fun to be their rag doll.

 

[heeler]

I will throw one more scenario out there.
Believe it or not but not everyone carries or owns a cell phone.
So what then?
It's you and them.

 

[Dnaltrop]

Well, back in the 80's when I was beaten by 6 people on an overpass... The option as an unarmed 9 year old was to bleed.

Honestly, if you're shooting at them, they'll either be continuing the attack you before you shoot them, running like scalded bunnies, or curled on the ground going " I"M SORRY I"M SORRY I"M SORRY"

I have an unlikely image of them stopping in their tracks... scratching their heads and going "Well damn sir, you didn't have to shoot him... so what do we do now? "

If the attack has stopped, and you, and none of the 3 assailants have a phone, and you're in remote enough of an area that no neighbor has heard the shots. (lets say this happens at the crest of the Eagle creek trail below Mt Hood, 20 miles from anyone else.)

You're not going to have a very good day. You'll either be holding the attackers as prisoners, or dealing with whatever story they cook up after you've left the scene of the shooting to find help.

 

[Loosedhorse]

You turn to address them

Why? Cross the street, run. If they pursue, access your cell phone or gun, whichever seems more needed.

But what would you do with your weapon, how would you handle the "accomplices"?

Point the gun at them, "DON'T MOVE--DON'T TOUCH THAT WEAPON!" (the phrase neatly covers the dropped weapon of the first attacker, and any weapons they might be carrying. It also alerts the witnesses you desperately need that that you are apprehending presumably armed attackers.)

They will likely run. Let them go.

If they stay (and you have the skills and training) detain them safely for police. This is NOT AT ALL easy to do, especially as they may have more accomplices on the way (if they are in a gang), so it might be better for you if they do run, and then you just have the down attacker, witnesses, and the police to worry about.

Which is plenty enough.

Believe it or not but not everyone carries or owns a cell phone.
So what then?

Start carrying one. IMHO it is ridiculous to carry a working gun but not a working cell phone. A gun solves one extremely unlikely, very serious problem. A cell phone solves thousands of common problem, many of them very serious.

 

[MedWheeler]

I will throw one more scenario out there.
Believe it or not but not everyone carries or owns a cell phone.

Get one. You're actually considering what to do in a self-defense shooting incident. You should certainly be considering what to do after it as well, right? If you don't want to pay for actual service, get a deactivated one. Make sure it's set up for a currently-used network technology (GSM or, in the case of Verizon phones, CDMA.) As long as it powers up, it should be able to access 911. You should not be carrying the means to deliver deadly-force defense without a means of communications. Cops don't. You need to be the first one to get the shooting called in; it gets your "side of the story" in faster, and gives you the chance to get word to the street cops being dispatched that there is at least one good guy involved and still on the scene.

 

[Birch Knoll]

Believe it or not but not everyone carries or owns a cell phone.

If you're carrying a gun and not a cell phone, then you need to spend a little less time in the gun shop and a little more time at the cell phone store.

 

[allaroundhunter]

Okay, I have a cell phone To whoever added that, it wasn't part of my original question, and it is starting to derail the post. As far as I'm concerned, it is more important to carry a cell phone than it is to carry a gun. Please, if possible let's get back to my original situation.

 

[MedWheeler]

If they stay, simply state firmly "Stay where you are! Do not move!" Then, just keep them covered while on the phone. Advise the operator of their presence, descriptions, direction of travel if they do turn and run, and your own description, as well as that of the downed individual. Do not encourage any of them to approach the downed individual. In fact, prevent it with the command "Stay back!" should one approach him. If any approaches you, the threat resumes and you will need to address it as a possible secondary attack and respond accordingly.
If they flee, let them go, but maintain constant awareness in case they circle back around to rescue their fallen comrade. This is far from unheard of.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by allaroundhunter: Please, if possible let's get back to my original situation.

It seems to me that Loosedhorse answered the question thoroughly in Post 8.


Are we there yet, or do you want this to continue?

 

[allaroundhunter]

I'm wondering about the legality of pointing the weapon at the remaining two?.That is what I would imagine doing, but have their actions as I have described legally warranted it?

Would the fact that they are associates with the (now incapacitated) assailant be enough for me to present the weapon to them?

 

[230RN]

Tough one, and allaroundhunter touched on what I was thinking, too.

Sitting here on my cushy couch, with my footsies up on the coffee table and a fresh cuppa coffee at hand, I would wonder it the "threat of severe bodily injury or death" was actually "stopped" at the fall of the first one.... unless they're already running away. If you get my drift.

If they run (most likely --they probably didn't have guns if the first one didn't), I can see their later statements to the police (if caught) to be along the lines of, "We wuz jist playing wit' him, man.... he didn't have to shoot our fellow Bible student and choirboy. Jis' playin' wit' him is all."

Hate to sound bloodthirsty, but if they don't run, might it not be better to stop the remaining "threat of severe bodily inury or death" at the outset? I myself would not like the thought of "detaining" the remaining Bible students.

Just throwing that out there for discussion because I don't know what I'd do, either.

I wonder what the professional tactical trainers would have to say about this situation. I mean, besides "stay out of bad parts of town."

Terry, 230RN

 

[Loosedhorse]

There is a general principle in law (articulated in Warren on Homicide, a standard text, I'm told) that the members of a mob, in jointly creating the perception of deadly threat to the innocent, each "share the general jeopardy accruing" from their participation in the mob. So, for example, if you aim at one and shoot another (while you're under reasonably perceived lethal attack from the group), it doesn't matter: they were all creating your jeopardy, and they were all valid targets of your self-defense. (Though tactics would suggest shooting the closest one or the one with a gun first).

Your question becomes, since you are now faced with two able-bodied attackers (they are part of the attack that commenced on you), a weapon on the ground (and more presumably hidden), all within your "Tueller space"--are you justified in using deadly force (pointing the gun or shooting) against the two remaining attackers?

IMHO, until you reasonably perceive that the attack has ended, you are. Their turning and running (if they do that) would, I think, meet that perception. Until they do that or something similar (hands high, backing away, etc.) you are still under attack, and they are part of it.

(Should I clarify? If the others were cheering him on from 20 yards away when he rushed you, I wouldn't consider them part of the attack; but you seemed to indicate they were all at close-quarters when one of them rushed you.)

 

[230RN]

^ Ah, thank you, Loosedhorse. That states it better than I did.

"...each 'share the general jeopardy accruing' from their participation in the mob" is the way I was going with it, but layman-edly.

TNX,

Terry, 230RN

 

[Loosedhorse]

Thanks. Obviously they're Warren's words, which is why they're so memorable.

Without false modesty, once we move to legal from tactics, I need help. HELP!

Perhaps, allaround, you would consider posting the legal portion of this q in Legal, and let a few experts have at it?

IANAL

 

[highlander 5]

I would think that if you shot 1 of the misceants the other 2 or 3 would turn and run figurimg "Gee maybe it's time to find a better way to make a living. Only an idiot or someone with a death wish would charge an armed individual that has just shot someone.

 

[Deanimator]

They're all part of a common criminal enterprise.

If they don't leave when their companion is shot, they're obviously a threat, possibly an imminent one.

Be prepared to shoot them, but only if they act overtly, such as producing weapons of their own or by advancing on you.

Anybody who, having engaged in a crime which led to the shooting of an associate, doesn't flee, is a threat and should be treated as such.

 

[JohnKSa]

If there's a remaining threat AND you don't feel that it's reasonable to deal with it using deadly force, AND you have no other reasonable options available for dealing with it then your best option is to carefully but rapidly leave the scene and contact the authorities as soon as possible.

 

[Strykervet]

That is a felony and I can legally draw whether it happens to me or I see it happen. Here anyway.

I've been in a very similar situation. I was younger, 16 or so, and a friend and I got beat pretty bad by ten guys. It started with three coming up behind us, I got the gut feeling but one guy ran between us like he was trying to flag someone ahead, when we looked, the other two kicked our legs from under us. The other seven came out the bushes and the beatings began.

After the beating, we split up and one came back for me, was reaching for something, but I made it to this guy's porch, I had no where else to go because of a fence running the length of the street. If he didn't answer, I was breaking it in. I was between a rock and a hard place.

But he answered --with a double barrel pointed at the other fellow. He never aimed at me, told me to keep a little distance. They guy saved my life (but had he not opened the door and I'd gone through it I guess he'd have taken it too).

In addition to this and being on the end of some other violence, I always carry. If this had happened again, I follow my gut. I am real careful, but I'd rather get a brandishing charge for pulling out of fear than get beat like that again.

These days, I just reach for it if I feel that gut feeling. I don't necessarily have my hand on it, but I can draw in a split second and it is obvious to the stranger what will happen if I feel endangered. Provided it is still concealed, this cannot be interpreted as brandishing or threatening behaviour.

So if this were to happen to me again, I'd have gotten the feeling, reached, and either they would have seen what I was doing and aborted, or continued and got shot. And I'd have shot every one of them that posed a direct threat to me or my friends, and held as many at gunpoint until the cops got there as I could.

I know a lot of you on here are computer commandos and figure out plays for "what ifs" so dissect what I say how you please, I don't care, you wanted an honest answer and this is from someone who lived through nearly the exact scenario you describe, except they had more friends.

You can ponder "what if" but until you have it happen to you, and if you survive that, it WILL change your outlook on defense. I'm not quick to draw or bloodthirsty by any stretch of the imagination, in fact, using my carry firearm is one of the things I really don't want to have to do in my life. But put back in that same situation, at least one of those men (kids really) would have been shot. If the others ran, so be it, I'd hold as many as I could and if they all ran I might even chase one within reason. It depends on the situation.

What I WON'T do EVER is ignore that GUT FEELING! Scientifically, it is your meta brain telling your aware brain that it is noticing some things that line up from past experiences and learning, combined with instinct, that could possibly put you jeopardy. Listen to it. It is seldom wrong.

 

[230RN]

If there's a remaining threat AND you don't feel that it's reasonable to deal with it using deadly force...

Sounds kinda self-contradictory to me.

...AND you have no other reasonable options available for dealing with it, then your best option is to carefully but rapidly leave the scene and contact the authorities as soon as possible.

This presumes they can't run faster than you... besides of which, you've now got your back to them, and you're in a terrible position to take accurate shots at the Bible student choirboy track stars who are after you.

Terry, 230RN

 

[Deanimator]

This presumes they can't run faster than you... besides of which, you've now got your back to them, and you're in a terrible position to take accurate shots at the Bible student choirboy track stars who are after you.

Ohio requires you (when not in home or vehicle) to ATTEMPT to withdraw BEFORE the attack, IF you can do so IN PERFECT SAFETY.

There's no duty to turn your back, try to outrun your assailant(s) or do ANYTHING which will add to your danger in ANY way. You only need to ATTEMPT to safely WITHDRAW. If your assailant(s) thwart that attempt, shame on them. If you're armed and willing to defend yourself, they're going to have a bad day.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Ohio requires you (when not in home or vehicle) to ATTEMPT to withdraw BEFORE the attack, IF you can do so IN PERFECT SAFETY.

I believe this is the whole point of the Tueller drill: the idea that YOU CANNOT safely retreat from a person coming at you with a contact weapon if they are within 20 feet or so. In fact, you are unlikley to be able to survive in this situation, unless your gun is already in your hand.

I therefore doubt that if I had three guys within 6 feet of me, one of whom I had just had to shoot as he tried to kill me, I'd be wondering about whether I could retreat in complete safety from the other two. Of course, as I said, they can convince me to hold fire if they overtly disengage from their attack (run away, or raise their hands and say, "DON'T SHOOT!").

Even then I would be covering them on their retreat. Retreat in the military is NOT surrender. It is a tactical maneuver to gain cover until one is again in a position to attack or return fire. The idea that an attacker on the street may retreat only as long and as far as it takes him to get his gun out and spin around? That deserves consideration, and caution.