One assailant, but accomplices?

[JohnKSa]

Sounds kinda self-contradictory to me.

Not at all. In fact, my state law describes at least two levels of threat and different levels of legal response to those different levels of threat.

Just because there's a threat doesn't mean it qualifies for the use of deadly force.

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.

I certainly didn't mean to advocate turning around and running away. To me, carefully but rapidly, withdrawing means keeping the threat in view and insuring that you can deal with them should the situation escalate but not dallying in your retreat. In the simplest analysis, it might be similar to what happened in a recent assault at a gas station. Two men attacked a person refueling his car. He shot one of them and then immediately got in his car and left the scene since the other attacker was still in the vicinity. Then he immediately contacted the authorities via cellphone to report the encounter and to let them know why he left the scene.

The point is that there's no obligation to stand around at the scene and wait for LE to show up if it is potentially dangerous. If things haven't escalated to the poitn that shooting is warranted, and if it's possible to leave safely, then leaving safely is an excellent idea.

If your assailant(s) thwart that attempt...

That's my take too. If I were to make an attempt to withdraw and my assailants made a move to stop me, I would take that as a clear statement of intent that they wish to do me serious harm or perhaps cause my death and would immediately take action to neutralize any remaining threat using any means at my disposal.

 

[230RN]

And then you bump into the two guys who were behind you.

 

[Deanimator]

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!").

At that point, the line has been crossed. They were active participants, encouraging the original attack. Anything other than flight or abject submission should be construed as continuing the threat. ANY attempt to pursue me is going to me with deadly force, as would probably any refusal by them to heed my command to leave the area.

Ohio law merely demands that you not UNNECESSARILY escalate the situation BEFORE you're put in immediate fear of life and limb. Once that happens, you have the right to defend yourself with deadly force until the threat ceases, either because your assailant(s) are incapacitated, have submitted, or have fled.

 

[Deanimator]

And then you bump into the two guys who were behind you.

... with two each rounds of Federal .38 Special 158gr. LSWC-HP.

That kind of "bump" leaves a mark.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Common criminal gangs are not the same as disciplined military troops who are willing to sacrifice their lives to achieve an objective. If you shoot one of them they will probably scatter like chickens. No one is going to lay down his life so that his surviving buddies can take your wallet.

 

[JohnKSa]

And then you bump into the two guys who were behind you.

So explain how a person would be better off if he decided to stay and there were two guys behind him.

 

[230RN]

"So explain how a person would be better off if he decided to stay and there were two guys behind him."

I'm not sure what the thrust of your question is. I only said that to bring up for discussion the notion that there might be confederates behind you as well.


If there were any there, they probably laid back during the assessment and interview phase of the confrontation and moved up behind you while you were paying attention to the operators. Unless you were well-trained to check behind you.

So you probably wouldn't know they were there until then.

I mentioned previously in Post 15, though, that all of them would probably scatter at the first shot. If they didn't, I suspected they were also eligible for a defensive shooting. This was confirmed later by Loosedhorse with his quote from Warren on Homicide, and others agree.

If I recall correctly, I believe the usual recommendation is to move sideways in a situation like this.

I'm no street tactician, by the way, and I don't pretend to be. I'm just saying how I imagine the OP's situation might work out, based on what I've read, not on what I've done, although I have encountered a couple of rough situations while not armed. None of them were fun, and I've had the "six o'clock approach" by a confederate pulled on me. I could not move since I was sitting on a bench. Fortunately, some friends of mine were nearby in that situation, so nothing really happened. I was stunned when they told me they saw the guy move up behind me, so they started paying attention. I was totally unaware of this, my attention being directed at the operator. I hate to tell you this, but the 16th Street Mall in Denver can be a dangerous place.

It is always constructive to see what other people think about a given tactical situation... it stimulates one's own thinking.

Terry, 230RN

 

[Loosedhorse]

If you shoot one of them they will probably scatter like chickens.

I agree, but I don't think you mean we should leave the question of our survival to what "probably" would happen.

The two guys left standing just tried to kill me with a weapon: that weapon was their buddy. I don't see why I should assume they're retiring from the fight, until they show me that they are.

I believe the usual recommendation is to move sideways in a situation like this.

Sideways ("off-line") and rearward from an on-coming attacker, making use of any available obstacles. Make the murderous attacker go through an obstacle to get to you. My favorite obstacle is a wall of lead projectiles; make any on-coming attacker get through that!

 

[JohnKSa]

I'm not sure what the thrust of your question is. I only said that to bring up for discussion the notion that there might be confederates behind you as well.

I get that, what I don't understand is the implication that trying to leave with bad guys behind you is somehow better than not trying to leave with bad guys behind you. It seems to me that bad guys behind you is a pretty untenable situation whether you bump into them while trying to leave or whether you stay in place and they surprise you at their leisure.

In other words, how does the fact that bad guys are behind you make it a bad idea to try to leave?

My recommendation was that if shooting was not a reasonable option moving away carefully and rapidly and then immediately notifying authorities would be the best option. Backing up blind is a poor tactic to use in any situation, which means that moving away "carefully" doesn't really encompass the action of backing up blind.

Clearly, if you're in a situation with multiple assailants where you reasonably feel that there is a serious and imminent threat to you and don't feel that you can reasonably leave safely then using deadly force would be an option.

For the sake of clarity, here's the original question:

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.

Clearly the scenario set up indicates that "the threat is stopped" and that only a potential threat, in the form of possibly armed accomplices, remains. In a situation like that, opening fire is hardly justified in the absence of some action on the part of the accomplices that makes it plain that they are a threat.

In other words, the original scenario more or less ruled out responding further with deadly force because it clearly indicated that the threat was stopped and the only question remaining was what to do about the accomplices who weren't obviously threats.

Which gets up back to what I recommended. If you're uncomfortable staying then don't stay. Leave carefully but rapidly as soon as you make the determination that staying seems like a bad idea.

As far as the rest goes, maybe it goes without saying, maybe not. In case it doesn't go with out saying: Don't back up blind and do your best to maintain a good awareness of the entire situation while leaving. If a deadly threat develops, be ready to respond appropriately and decisively.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Clearly the scenario set up indicates that "the threat is stopped"

Perhaps we don't agree with the OP's assessment there. He did not indicate why he thinks "the threat" is stopped. If "the threat" was the person with the knife, that person is apparently stopped. I have been arguing that the "threat" (if they are all close) is the entire group, a threat that doesn't end when just one of them goes down.

 

[allaroundhunter]

Loosed and John, y'all are both hitting on why I asked the question, fight or flight? When I said "the threat was stopped", I meant the immediate, weapon wielding threat. However, because of their actions, the rest of the group should not be dismissed as harmless. After having to engage one of the members, leaving is not exactly an option because the shooter would need to be on-scene when the police arrive (I would think). I just don't know how to treat the remaining group members (if they were stupid enough not to run away). Would you try to keep them on-scene at gunpoint? Tell them to leave?

 

[Loosedhorse]

fight or flight?

I always prefer flight if it is safe, possible, and does not involve leaving loved ones behind.

leaving is not exactly an option because the shooter would need to be on-scene when the police arrive (I would think).

I disagree: other needs come before the need to be on-scene for police.

The defender's first duty is to keep himself (and loved ones) alive. His second duty is to avoid shooting if he can safely do that.

If running away will accomplish either duty (even after I've already shot one attacker) I will run--but I will call the police ASAP.

We don't hear about such scenarios much because I suspect they don't happen much. As has already been said, the most likely result of your shooting one of the attackers is that the others will flee; so you'll stay put and call from where you are.

Would you try to keep them on-scene at gunpoint? Tell them to leave?

Tough question. Keeping two unsecured, possibly armed attackers proned out for how many minutes until the police arrive? And if one does something that makes me believe he's about to shoot me, then I...shoot him, likely in the head, while he's down or just beginning to rise? In front of witnesses, maybe on video?

I've been trained on how to hold someone at gunpoint, but I sure don't like the odds. If I'm smart that day, I'll tell them to get out of here, NOW!

 

[JohnKSa]

...the rest of the group should not be dismissed as harmless.

There's a HUGE difference between "should not be dismissed as harmless" and "justification for use of deadly force".

To paraphrase a comedian, "You gotta stop putting everyone into one group!"

The fact that you can't or shouldn't dismiss someone as harmless is worlds away from being able to say that you need to use deadly force (or even just plain force) against them. Holding someone at gunpoint (in the absence of a reasonable justification) in my state would (at least) be considered equivalent to using force against that person, but probably would not be considered deadly force.

Rather, one should look at it from the converse. You should ONLY use deadly force if the person is definitely a serious threat (or reasonably appears to be a serious threat.) If the accomplices haven't made it plain that they're serious threats then shooting them is really, REALLY over-reacting.

Would you try to keep them on-scene at gunpoint? Tell them to leave?

Lots of complication here. What does keeping the assailants on-scene have to do with self-defense? I don't want to keep potential bad guys close to me, I want them far away from me. The only reason I would EVER consider something like that would be if I were seriously and reasonably concerned that by letting the assailants leave I would be obviously endangering my own life.

For example, I wouldn't like to see obviously hostile and very angry associates of a person I just shot heading toward their vehicle where they might have weapons concealed or in a situation where I truly felt like there was a real possibility that they would use their vehicle as a weapon against me once they were in it.

If they want to leave, I'd let them leave. If they want to stay I'd let them stay, but if they stayed and that made me uncomfortable I might choose to leave rather than stay myself. Again, I don't like to spend time around potential bad guys, I want to be far away from them whether it's because they leave or because I leave.

Here's the problem as I see it and it has nothing to do with figuring out what to do with someone else. It just has to do with deciding what YOU are going to do with yourself. Exercise your option to use deadly force or don't. Exercise your option to leave or don't.

If there's justification for deadly force and that's your only reasonable option then shoot. If there's no justification for deadly force or if you have other reasonable alternatives then don't shoot and/or exercise your other reasonable alternatives.

If you feel comfortable staying or don't feel that you can leave safely then stay. If you don't feel comfortable staying and feel that you can leave safely then leave.

Why complicate things by taking on the burden of trying to decide what to do with the potential bad guys? It's generally hard enough to decide what to do with yourself, in my experience.