Should You Draw ONLY IF your going to fire?

[JRH6856]

^^^ I think that average reaction time is a bit faster than that, but that just means everything is happening even faster.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Basically it comes to escalation of force. You meet force with equal force. threatening you with hand, if you have to fight to get yourself free. If he draws a knife or pistol with intent to maim or kill, he will be fired upon indefinitely. I will not draw on an unarmed man.

But how do you know he is unarmed or very skilled?

Deaf

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

^^^^

What Deaf Smith said.

Be careful about making such blanket statements...they typically illustrate conceptual errors in the process. "Unarmed" does NOT necessarily equate to "no threat".

As an example, I'm 5' 9" tall and 184 pounds (and could stand to get back into the 160's). Pit me against a 6' 2" guy who looks like an NFL linebacker with an attitude, and you've got a disparity of force which demands an "equalizer" on my part.

Toss in drugs, mental health problems, or significant fighting skills and you potentially get a disparity of force that requires an assisted response.

 

[BSA1]

Deaf Smith, JRH6856, et al;

We have “castle defense” law here also….

But just because you CAN doesn’t mean you SHOULD.

Castle Defense Law will not prevent you from being charged and tried in a Court of Law. It just gives you an affirmative defense. So you are still going to be out big bucks for a good attorney and you do get what you pay for with lawyers.

In addition the blanket statement M2 Carbine made in Post 32 could easily be used to prove premeditation. I sure would hate to have to explain that statement to a jury.

I once made highly critical comments of the agency I was working for on a discussion forum. My boss called me into his office and questioned me about it. I never identified myself by real name, where I live and what agency I was working for yet someone copied the entire thread and mailed it to him (He showed me the copy). SO what is the possibility a copy of the thread such as M2 Carbine's reaching the D.A, if he is involved in a shooting?

Me??? Like I said I’m the biggest coward on THR. I have everything well covered with replacement value insurance. I am recovering from a serious medical condition (double heart bypass) that makes getting in to a confrontation unwise. SO if I use deadly force I can show to the jury it was my absolute last choice.

Think about it…

 

[mljdeckard]

In a word, yes. If you draw, the situation will likely de-escalate and you won't have to. Statistically, this is what is going to happen. However: Do not confuse this with brandishing. In my state, you are allowed to present to deter violence if you are reasonably sure that violence is imminent. But don't EVER, AND I DO MEAN EVER, draw if you aren't fully prepared to fire if the situation DOESN'T de-escalate.

If you draw, and then you cannot say you were in reasonable fear of violence, you have just committed aggravated assault.

 

[buck460XVR]

Deaf Smith, JRH6856, et al;

We have “castle defense” law here also….

But just because you CAN doesn’t mean you SHOULD.

Castle Defense Law will not prevent you from being charged and tried in a Court of Law. It just gives you an affirmative defense. So you are still going to be out big bucks for a good attorney and you do get what you pay for with lawyers.

This is how "Castle Doctrine" reads here. We are protected against criminal and civil charges if shooting is deemed justified.

On December 7, 2011 Governor Walker signed a bill passing a Castle Doctrine for Wisconsin. The bill provides criminal immunity (WI statute 939.48(1m)[10]) and protection from civil suits (WI statute 895.62 [11]) for homeowners or business owners who use a gun in self-defense while on their property, with the presumption that any action was justified. The law is a "stand your ground" law, which does not contain a duty to retreat. This applies in your car, at your business, and at your home. Protection extends to improvements only (driveway, sidewalk, patio, fence, garage, house...), not bare ground. Also, the criminal must have forcibly entered, or be in the process of attempting to forcibly enter, and the defender must be present in the home, car, or business. The Washington County DA ruled that opening a door counts as forcible entry

Opening a door counts as forcible entry. While many read this as making it legal to shoot anyone you don't know, walking in your front door, one still needs to take the time to identify a threat and decide if it's a legitimate threat. Already been cases here where innocent folks with no ill intent have been shot and killed by those with a itchy trigger finger. Those shooters have been exonerated by the legal system, but have to live with their mistake. Any time you put a gun in your hand in SD/HD one needs to realize it could be not only a life saving act, but a life changing one also.

 

[Edventures]

I had to work late , last week . So it was dark when I finally got out of there.
Leaving the elevator, I noticed the steel door that seperates the cars from the elavator bay closing .As I went thru it a man and a woman were walking out in front of me arm in arm , I thought they must have just come from dinner .
I stand 6' 2" 235 lbs and was wearing a winter black leather jacket collar up
black stocking cap and a full bread as I normally do in winter.
I was walking in the same direction as them as my car was down there.
When the steel door closed he looked back and saw me following them.
I noticed he pulled her in a little closer. I walk faster then them , and was closing the gap between us,and thought nothing of it. When they got to their car it was right next to my car , their passenger door next to my drivers door.
He was helping her in the car when I walked up. This guy got excited, he stood up and shouted at me "Get back I have a gun". As I pulled my hands out of my jacket pockets to show him my empty hands, I said in a very excited voice" this is my car pal!!" jesturing to my vechicle. This guy was pulling out his gun. I was yelling No!No!, his wife was was screaming something he was screaming Get back !! Get back!! I turned and ran back to the elevators. I heard car doors slam and tires squeel. my heart was racing let me tell you.
I don't feel like a coward,nor do I feel like he was justified in his actions.
I had my carry gun on me.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

This is how "Castle Doctrine" reads here. We are protected against criminal and civil charges if shooting is deemed justified.



Opening a door counts as forcible entry. While many read this as making it legal to shoot anyone you don't know, walking in your front door, one still needs to take the time to identify a threat and decide if it's a legitimate threat. Already been cases here where innocent folks with no ill intent have been shot and killed by those with a itchy trigger finger. Those shooters have been exonerated by the legal system, but have to live with their mistake. Any time you put a gun in your hand in SD/HD one needs to realize it could be not only a life saving act, but a life changing one also.

I put the key words in bold here.

The problem here is that too many people seem to assume that their actions will be considered "justified" from the onset, and this isn't true. One may, in fact, end up in court disputing this very thing, in which case the COURT decides whether or not one was, indeed, justified. And who makes the decision as to whether or not any given shooting is justified? The prosecution. (Read: DA.) If they do not believe it was justified, then you have NO protection under that statute until you go to court and PROVE it.

Court battles are generally neither quick nor inexpensive.

 

[Trent]

I put the key words in bold here.

The problem here is that too many people seem to assume that their actions will be considered "justified" from the onset, and this isn't true. One may, in fact, end up in court disputing this very thing, in which case the COURT decides whether or not one was, indeed, justified. And who makes the decision as to whether or not any given shooting is justified? The prosecution. (Read: DA.) If they do not believe it was justified, then you have NO protection under that statute until you go to court and PROVE it.

Court battles are generally neither quick nor inexpensive.

Perfectly said.

Unless my thinking is flawed;

Every shoot, in every state, is truthfully either a homicide or attempted homicide. If your situation is justified, the states attorney / district attorney may (after considerable time, while you sweat it out) decide not to file charges against you. A grand jury then decides whether to indict you on those charges; if they do, the case goes to trial.

In most states, the burden is on *you* to prove your justification. You have to clearly illustrate and prove the shoot was justified. (Not particularly easy, if there are no living witnesses).

In *some* states, the burden is on the *prosecution* to prove you acted in an unjustified manner (Arizona comes to mind, thanks to the Harold Fish case and subsequent law changes).

Meanwhile, the *entire* time, you could be sitting in jail waiting for your chance to prove your innocence.


That would be a profoundly disruptive event on most people's lives; loss of work, missed time with family, social stigma, etc.

If I'm wrong, about any of this, feel free to correct me.

 

[Sam1911]

Trent, where you'll be told you're wrong is that many states have some sort of "Castle Doctrine" (as you, of course, know) which, you'll be told, makes the state assume you were in the right and not prosecute you if you claim self-defense.

What that generally overlooks is the fact that all such presuppositions of justification are rebuttable -- meaning that if anything looks at all questionable about your version of what happened, or the independent observer (investigator) doesn't see things the way you see them, the state proceeds with a prosecution, Castle Doctrine or no.

CDs CAN help the righteous defender, and ARE a very good thing. They are NOT any kind of get out of jail free card, or license to do one single thing that you wouldn't do in defending yourself in any other place or situation.

 

[Kleanbore]

We have gone a bit off-topic, but since there is obviously a great deal of confusion about the separate subjects of immunity from criminal prosecution and of immunity from civil liability, I suggest bookmarking and reading this.

Some salient points:

• Criminal and civil trials are conducted in different courts, with different rules.
• Among those differences is that in civil court, there is nothing equivalent to a right against self-incrimination.
• Immunity is not automatic; the actor will have to present evidence of justification (a preponderance of the evidence) to the respective courts; the courts will determine whether the case(s) will proceed.
• A decision by the state to not pursue criminal charges, for whatever reason, will not automatically trigger civil immunity.
• An acquittal in criminal court may not suffice to support justification in a civil court.

 

[joe40x]

Once you clear leather, the decision has already been made.

 

[Sam1911]

Once you clear leather, the decision has already been made.

But fortunately, decisions can be UN-made, too, if the situation changes in the second and a half (an eternity, by the way) it takes you to get your gun out.

Until the hammer falls, you aren't committed. Many have shared experiences where this happened, and all were eternally thankful that it did.

 

[buck460XVR]

We have gone a bit off-topic, but since there is obviously a great deal of confusion about the separate subjects of immunity from criminal prosecution and of immunity from civil liability, I suggest bookmarking and reading this.

Some salient points:

[*]A decision by the state to not pursue criminal charges, for whatever reason, will not automatically trigger civil immunity.

[*]An acquittal in criminal court may not suffice to support justification in a civil court.

As I read the WI law as posted above and how it has been explained to me is that as long as the shooting is deemed justified, you are immune from both......here. As I said before, being deemed justified by law does not mean it was necessary. Here is a example of one here in WI while deemed legal, is certainly questionable if it was really necessary......

"Under a reasonable view of the evidence the homeowner acted reasonably in his use of force based on the facts and circumstances," county District Attorney Mark Bensen said.

According to Bensen's report clearing homeowner Adam Kind, Morrison attended a party in a garage adjacent to Kind's house with about 20 young adults the night of the shooting.

Kind, 35, called police at about 1 a.m. March 3 complaining of loud music coming from a car parked in his neighbor's driveway.

Police contacted the parents of the girls who were hosting the party and they told everyone to leave, the report said.

Morrison, who had previous run-ins with the police and had a blood-alcohol content more than twice the legal limit for driving in Wisconsin, left the party.

Kind, who said his concern was elevated because his wife, two children and a child guest were in the house, retrieved a handgun after he heard noises on his porch, the report said.

Kind loaded the handgun, went to the porch and confronted Morrison, who was wearing dark clothing, the report said. Kind fired one shot as Morrison walked toward him, then yelled for his wife to call 911, the report said.

An attorney representing Kind said the shooting of Morrison in the enclosed porch would have been considered justifiable under Wisconsin's prior law as well.

"All the factors to prove self-defense under the old law were present," lawyer Craig Mastantuono said.

Morrison's mother, Lauri Morrison, said he was trying to hide because he had previous tickets for underage drinking.

By law, Kind's use of deadly force was justified. But did he need to go out on the porch and confront the young man? There was still a locked exterior door between him and Morrison. Did he need to shoot him just cause he stumbled toward him a drunken stupor or did fear and adrenaline pull the trigger in a scenario that could have been easily deescalated? Was there really fear of death or grave bodily harm or was the frustration of loud music next door, pesky kids and a drunk black man on your porch part of the equation? Only Adam Kind really knows. Yes the kid was drunk and on the porch, but the only real crime that was proven he committed was underage drinking and accidentally entering Kind's porch. A great tragedy for both parties involved.

 

[gym]

Absolutely one of the truest things you will ever hear from those who have carried a gun for a long time, "only because the longer you have one the more likely someday you will need to pull it". There would be a lot of dead people who died needlessly if every time one of the millions of gun carrying population shot before making a final decision as to what they are really seeing. Sometimes this must be done with gun in hand, as if it was a necessary conclusion, you would survive, if not it would be too late to re access and make a decision afterwards.

 

[rbernie]

Once you clear leather, the decision has already been made

In my view, drawing your firearm means that there is an realistic threat of death or immediate serious bodily injury; it doesn't mean that the decision has been made to drop the hammer. It may be that the threat is both real and immediate and that you better be shooting as soon as feasible. It may also be that the threat is real but that there still may be the chance to address it without resorting to deadly force, in which case drawing your gun implies preparation but not commitment. Under no circumstances do I intend to NOT prepare in whatever time that I have, should I feel that a realistic threat is upon me.

Texas treats the notion of drawing and shooting similarly in terms of when it's allowed and how its viewed (both constitute deadly force, last I checked), but in turn provides legal coverage for when a reasonable man might find hisself in fear of death or immediate serious bodily injury and therefore engage in lawful deadly force (either by drawing a firearm or by both drawing and using it). Interestingly, drawing without display of the gun doesn't count legally as 'drawing' in Texas, as I understand things, in which case drawing from leather is completely preparatory and non-committal in the eyes of the law....

 

[mgkdrgn]

Should You Draw ONLY IF your going to fire?

I would replace "your going" with "you intend". If the act of drawing resolves the problem, so much the better, but if not ... BANG!

What was it Maverick said ... "Never pull a gun unless you intend to use it, then don't stop using it until the job is done."

In this case, the "job" is removing the threat.

 

[wally]

In a situation that will potentially alter the rest of your life, I don't think any definitive general advice can be valid.

Pulling a gun escalates the situation, which may or may not cause the other side to de-escalate.

Never been in that situation, but three times in my life, putting my hand on my carry piece (or pretending to) has made suspicious characters move on.

I think its clear that situational awareness skills will do a lot more for you with a CCW than will "quick draw" skills.

My bias is, if my pistol is drawn, I'm almost certainly gonna need to be shooting it!

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by buck460XVR: The Washington County DA ruled that opening a door counts as forcible entry.

Just to be clear here, an opinion by a district attorney has absolutely no precedential value.

The statute does not define forcible entry, and to my knowledge, there have as yet been no appellate court rulings on the subject. I would hate to be the test case.

By law, Kind's use of deadly force was justified.

Only a jury, or perhaps an appellate court overturning a conviction of Kind for a relevant reason, can determine that.

Kind's attorney so argued; and the DA opined that Kind's use of deadly force was "reasonable", and he declined to prosecute.

But district attorneys do not stay in office forever, and for the crime of murder, there is not statute of limitations. The charging of Kind remains an open possibility until such time as he receives an executive pardon or has expired.

 

[buck460XVR]

Just to be clear here, an opinion by a district attorney has absolutely no precedential value.

The statute does not define forcible entry, and to my knowledge, there have as yet been no appellate court rulings on the subject. I would hate to be the test case.

Only a jury, or perhaps an appellate court overturning a conviction of Kind for a relevant reason, can determine that.

Kind's attorney so argued; and the DA opined that Kind's use of deadly force was "reasonable", and he declined to prosecute.

But district attorneys do not stay in office forever, and for the crime of murder, there is not statute of limitations. The charging of Kind remains an open possibility until such time as he receives an executive pardon or has expired.

All are good points defining our Castle Doctrine here and all are good reasons to again, assess the threat before pulling the trigger. Kinda the point behind my ramblings. So many times you hear the statement "better to be tried by twelve than carried by six" in reference to SD/HD procedures. One needs to be sure tho, that the only other option to being tried by twelve is to be carried by six.....not just because you can. Kind IMHO, was well within the law to use deadly force. The question I have, was it really necessary? While I'm like many and feel that if I am to error between life and death, I'd rather error to live, I hope it would never come to that and that the line would be more clearly drawn in the sand than it was in Kind's case. Not just for legality reasons, but to be able to live with myself.

 

[Mike1234567]

The only reason I would ever draw... and I only did this once... is to give myself enough lead time to defend myself should a situation quickly escalate. God forbid I'd ever need to pull the trigger but I'm a pretty decent shot and I never panic so that one time I did pull to the ready could easily have ended in another man's death. Thank God that situation was resolved peaceably despite the fact the guy was coked-up out of his mind... his girlfriend ran across the street to talk him down and that took some doing on her part. That was an extremely bad neighborhood full of section 8 housing, drugs, rapes and murders. Thank God I only lived there a few months.

 

[JRH6856]

Even though there may be some obvious (and not so obvious) similarities, every situation stands on its own and will have some factors unique to that situation. Each situation is therefore different and cannot be fully and accurately evaluated in advance. All anyone can do is be as prepared as possible to evaluate and respond when the time comes.

I do not know what I would do should I find an intruder in my house. It will depend on the totality of the situation when it occurs.

 

[JRH6856]

But district attorneys do not stay in office forever, and for the crime of murder, there is not statute of limitations. The charging of Kind remains an open possibility until such time as he receives an executive pardon or has expired.

Initially, the police in FL investigated George Zimmerman and the SA considered the shooting justified under FL law and declined prosecution. It was only after the Martin family attorney generated a media storm that the State Attorney decided to reopne the case. But the case was reopened and we know the rest of the story.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Deaf Smith, JRH6856, et al;

We have “castle defense” law here also….

But just because you CAN doesn’t mean you SHOULD.

Castle Defense Law will not prevent you from being charged and tried in a Court of Law. It just gives you an affirmative defense. So you are still going to be out big bucks for a good attorney and you do get what you pay for with lawyers.

In addition the blanket statement M2 Carbine made in Post 32 could easily be used to prove premeditation. I sure would hate to have to explain that statement to a jury.

I once made highly critical comments of the agency I was working for on a discussion forum. My boss called me into his office and questioned me about it. I never identified myself by real name, where I live and what agency I was working for yet someone copied the entire thread and mailed it to him (He showed me the copy). SO what is the possibility a copy of the thread such as M2 Carbine's reaching the D.A, if he is involved in a shooting?

Me??? Like I said I’m the biggest coward on THR. I have everything well covered with replacement value insurance. I am recovering from a serious medical condition (double heart bypass) that makes getting in to a confrontation unwise. SO if I use deadly force I can show to the jury it was my absolute last choice.

Think about it…

Well BSA,

In Texas as long as it's in your home and you didn't provoke anything I am not worried about beng sued.

We have had several people claim the castle law here and they were not even charged.. and no civial sute.

Now if you invited them over and a argument came about... well that's a whole different matter.

But for those who break into homes here, yes it is a free fire zone.

Deaf

 

[Frank Ettin]

...This is how "Castle Doctrine" reads here. We are protected against criminal and civil charges if shooting is deemed justified.

On December 7, 2011 Governor Walker signed a bill passing a Castle Doctrine for Wisconsin. The bill provides criminal immunity (WI statute 939.48(1m)[10]) and protection from civil suits (WI statute 895.62 [11]) for homeowners or business owners who use a gun in self-defense while on their property, with the presumption that any action was justified. The law is a "stand your ground" law, which does not contain a duty to retreat. This applies in your car, at your business, and at your home. Protection extends to improvements only (driveway, sidewalk, patio, fence, garage, house...), not bare ground. Also, the criminal must have forcibly entered, or be in the process of attempting to forcibly enter, and the defender must be present in the home, car, or business. The Washington County DA ruled that opening a door counts as forcible entry...

No, that is not how the law reads. That is how the law was summarized when the signing of the law was reported. "How the law reads" is what it says in the statute books.

In any case, Castle Doctrine, Stand Your Ground and Civil immunity laws are not nearly as simple and straightforward as people would like to believe. See these threads for detailed discussions: Duty to Retreat, "Stand Your Ground", and Castle Doctrine and Civil Liability, Civil Immunity, and the Use of Force.