The minimum threat level to present your gun?

Status
Not open for further replies.
First situation, yes, I would pull and fire. The person is superior in size, and a reasonable person cannot know his intentions or capabilities and should act to protect their life. This would be mitigated, however, by a couple of things. If it was someone I KNEW from previous life experience, and I didn't believe him to be serious about accidental death, I would not act with deadly force. On the other hand, if it was a person I knew to be violent because I watched him commit acts of violence in the past which had to be halted with outside intervention, I would assume his acts to be sufficiently dangerous in nature to justify deadly force. Someone else said above, that they never allow themselves to be hit before presenting. I will not speak as absolutely. There well may exist situations where if you take a broken nose, a bruised rib, a broken tooth, and that can end the situation, it would be difficult to convince a jury it was necessary to begin the ventilation process.

Second situation does not justify deadly force, HOWEVER, I WOULD confront from a safe distance, and be prepared to defend if one of them charged me instead of running away. (I would have my camera phone in my left hand.)

Third situation, same thing. YOUR life is not in danger, but these people have demonstrated a propensity for inflicting serious bodily injury, and now you are a witness. They are about to DECIDE if your life is in danger. You are now giving THEM the option. Get a head start on the police, or try to prevent YOU from testifying. Let them make the choice. I wouldn't pull, but I would stand ready and confront.
 
I. Gun "use" is only an option in a life threatening situation.
II. The bearer should not present their gun unless prepared to fire the weapon.
Note that quotes were put around "use" in the first statement because "use" did not mean "fire". Please let me know if you disagree with those 2 points of my personal gun policy thus far.

Following the logic of the previous statements.... If an attacker is not realistically threatening your life, your gun should remain concealed, and it should not be "used" (i.e. shown) even as a deterent.

my comments will be in italics

I disagree with your definition of 'use'. I believe a gun should only be discharged if your life/health is in serious danger or someone else's life/health is in serious danger. However, there are plenty of times prior to actually arriving at that point where bandishing is allowable in my mind.

An example from a friend of mine. Moved into a new home in a rough neighborhood. Woke up when a guy was trying to kick the door in yelling a name that was not his. The door was holding, he was not currently in any danger. He had spouse dial 911, and grabbed his gun, and threw up the sash, and while displaying his gun yelled 'get out of here'.

The guy turned tail and ran.

now, if you are not at the point where you are calling 911, brandishing is too extreme. However, there is a big difference in my mind between actually discharging, and simply showing that you are ready and willing to defend yourself.




How would you respond to the following situations? Would your gun be an option?
1. A much larger guy grabs you by the shirt, raises a fist, and makes some demand ("give me your wallet, watch, ... <whatever>").
-A-Is your life really in danger? Beating someone to death would take time and this guy wants money. Realistically, your life is not in danger if you send him away with your valuables.
-B-If this guy gets the impression that you are reaching for a weapon, he might be able to wrestle it away from you.

once he has his hands on you, you have already failed to successfully avoid conflict, and you are in REAL danger unless he immediately lets go. I am all for tossing your valuables and running in the other direction, but once phyiscal contact is innitiated during the committing of a crime, especially restraining you from fleeing, you are in real danger. I also don't think there is any difference between being beaten to death vs being beaten enough to loose the use of your legs, to have perminant brain damage, to have vision impairment. Look, if some crazy guy is going around and all he is doing is gouging out people's eyes, and he has got me down, BAM. Serious injury is enough of a reason to use deadly force. As far as concern B, if the guy is ballsy enough to attempt to tangle that gun away from you rather than flee at the sight of it, he is probably planning on killing you or beating you to unconciosness anyways, hence, i might as well take the chance. Besides, it isn't all that easy to take a gun away from a person.



2. You are leaving an event, heading back to your car. Six drunk guys are walking some distance in front of you. They notice your nice car and stop at it before you get there. You hear comments about vandalizing it, and they start doing some "unauthorized body work".
-A-At this point, your life is not clearly in danger. Yelling at them will either send them running, or put your life in MORE danger than it is currently.
-B-Calling the police is an option, but vanalism is not a high priority for the cops.
-C-How do you confront them, or at least prevent more damage to your car?


My life is not in danger. I don't care how high of a priority the police put on vandalism, I am calling 911. I would, however, yell at them. Yes, I know you said it 'could' put your life in danger, but then any decision 'could' put your life in danger...maybe they want you to run aways so they can kidnap you! probably not, but then yelling probably won't put you in danger, as they are only displaying the desire to commit criminal mischief.

Now, if I yelled at them and they ran, all good. If I yelled at them and they ignored me and kept on vandalizing car, I'd keep yelling. If they turned on me and started approaching as if intending to give harm, I would retreat, but would NOT turn my back on them. If this failed I would brandish and yell at them not to come any closer. Once I had nowhere to retreat, and my drawn weapon did not diswaid them, and they continued to approach threatening en-mass and were CLOSE I would feel justified in using deadly force



3. Two guys just beat your friend up in a parking lot and he's lying in a bloody heap (still conscious). They are all the same size as you and no weapons are visible. Fighting them means that you are next to be a bloody heap; calling the police means that they take off (maybe after they beat you up).
-A-At this point, your life is not clearly in danger.
-B-Of course you are not going to just ignore what happened to your friend.

Call 911. My job isn't to avenge my friend, but to aid him. If they flee upon hearing me call 911 all is good.

I would also draw my weapon if they did not immediately flee upon my calling 911. Also, I would advance up to were the fallen friend was. I would see any approach toward me as a very serious threat (I am clearly armed, this does not seem to diswaid them, they have already proven a propensity to do serious physical harm, it is reasonable to think they woudl do the same to me) and woudl respond with the most effective force I could muster. In this case it would be to shoot them.

A problem with this question is 'bloody heap' but still consious. You can be consious while your brain swells from a blow to the head, and then die from it a few hours later. You can have an eye knocked out of it's socket and loose sight perminantly, you can have internal bleeding, you can have your spine stomped on paralyzing you.


Guy A punches friend in the nose, bloodying it, guy B punches him in the gut, he falls over, they stand over him for a second, that's different. It's also not 'bloody heap'



I just want to hear some thoughts, and I am serious about asking this. Please assume that you have little or no martial arts training. You have your CCW, cell phone, no pepper spray, .... and pants. Ladies, you can also have a bra for this example. What is the minimum threat level where you would present your gun?
 
I am a senior citizen......

I would ask him if he would prefer my wallet or his life..........In Texas, if someone is customizing your car, you can shoot them........6 guys moving in on me would be a good time to draw........chris3
 
In Texas, if someone is customizing your car, you can shoot them..

Really? Let's see the law. We don't post urban legends about the law here in Strategies and Tactics. I want to see the law that allows you to shoot someone for vandalizing your car while it is parked on the street or in a public parking area.

Jeff
 
Actually, I believe that use of a gun is also constitutionally justified for "defense of property" as well. I would gather that the circumstances would have to be somewhat extreme.
 
Actually, I believe that use of a gun is also constitutionally justified for "defense of property" as well. I would gather that the circumstances would have to be somewhat extreme.
I have never known that to be the case, but I would like to see the source of that information if you have some. Maybe a court ruling?
 
Actually, I believe that use of a gun is also constitutionally justified for "defense of property" as well.
Hokkmike,
I'm fairly sure that law pertains to someone breaking into your home, not messing with your car.
 
Make your decision and stick with it

1. A much larger guy grabs you by the shirt, raises a fist, and makes some demand ("give me your wallet, watch, ... <whatever>").

-A-Is your life really in danger? Beating someone to death would take time and this guy wants money. Realistically, your life is not in danger if you send him away with your valuables.There is no guarantee that being beaten to death will take time. And even if it does I don't want to wait around for it.:) A much larger guy who is probably already smacking on you a bit, that's defensible in court. Take care of business. Of course if you feel you can resolve it without getting killed or maimed or worse, salute!

-B-If this guy gets the impression that you are reaching for a weapon, he might be able to wrestle it away from you.Darn right if he's big enough to smack me around, he can take it away. That's why in this case my legs are my friend. Move as far away as possible. Use your wallet as bait if necessary, i.e. bait. Then draw from as much distance to make sure the attack does not continue.

2. You are leaving an event, heading back to your car. Six drunk guys are walking some distance in front of you. They notice your nice car and stop at it before you get there. You hear comments about vandalizing it, and they start doing some "unauthorized body work".

-A-At this point, your life is not clearly in danger. Yelling at them will either send them running, or put your life in MORE danger than it is currently.

:) use my "black clicker box thingy" (that's tech speak by the way) to set off the EMERGENCY! Then sit back and enjoy six drunk guys pummel eachother to get away (here's hoping anyway)

-B-Calling the police is an option, but vanalism is not a high priority for the cops. That's right. So have good insurance. That is all young padawa

-C-How do you confront them, or at least prevent more damage to your car?
Here you run into the issue of initiating the confrontation. Let's assume your armed and they are drunk. I always carry my surefire flashlight. It's blinding and disorienting. Then if necessary, pepper spray(I know I know, we don't have it, I carry a manbag, I've got everything) the :cuss:`s

3. Two guys just beat your friend up in a parking lot and he's lying in a bloody heap (still conscious). They are all the same size as you and no weapons are visible. Fighting them means that you are next to be a bloody heap; calling the police means that they take off (maybe after they beat you up).

-A-At this point, your life is not clearly in danger. If they in any way threaten to do to you what they did to your hombre, your justified in Arizona

-B-Of course you are not going to just ignore what happened to your friend.Darn right. Of course I'm not a person to jump in un prepared. Be the guy whose alive to take him to the hospital
 
And yet here in Virginia, you may brandish your weapon in self-defense;

§ 18.2-282. Pointing, holding, or brandishing firearm, air or gas operated weapon or object similar in appearance; penalty. (Code 1950, § 18.1-69.2; 1968, c. 513; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1990, cc. 588, 599; 1992, c. 735; 2003, c. 976; 2005, c. 928.)
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured. However, this section shall not apply to any person engaged in excusable or justifiable self-defense. Persons violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor or, if the violation occurs upon any public, private or religious elementary, middle or high school, including buildings and grounds or upon public property within 1,000 feet of such school property, he shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.
 
Since I've had both hips replaced, I can no longer fight or run like I used to. I am not about to let someone get close enough to strike me or worse take my gun from me and use it against me. So count me in the camp of those that when the hair on their neck comes up, the gun comes out to low ready
I'm in the same boat as you, with the wife in a wheelchair most times, and I agree. But if the gun comes out and the guy stops, hands up and says "Whoa there, take it easy." I'm certainly not going to still shoot him.

A gun can come out and not have to kill.
 
I just had this conversation with a buddy. I call it "Big Balls Syndrome". It seems that so many of us suddenly will go places and do things we never would if we didn't have a firearm on us.

I for one was this way back when I use to carry about 20 years ago. In fact, I talked myself out of carrying a firearm for a couple years due to this fact ( I am crediting imaturity for my values and thoughts). I was going places (That short cut thru the dark alleys, For a cruise thru the parks at night, Late night seedy bars) that I sure wouldn't go to or thru if I wasn't armed. I found that I was now engaging strangers that I normally would have avoided, or went out of my way to avoid. Hey, I was armed I can do that now. I don't have to go out of my way anymore.

Then I woke up and smelled the coffee and realized I was carrying for the wrong reason. I was carrying to be tough. It made me cool. Go ahead, mess with me, I'm packing.

Well, that was about 20 years ago. I have started to carry again. And I have a much different perspective. I find that I make a more concious effort to still avoid this "bad" places. I still avoid those "strange" people. In fact, I think I may try a bit harder than I did before. I know I am more alert to my surrondings again.

But now, if for some reason, they (the "strange ones") come to me, and I can't avoid them. I will have the means of proteciting myself. I don't carry a pistol to be tough or brave. I carry one cause I am afraid. Afraid of what society has become. Afraid of the wierdos out there. Not afraid to do what I have to do to protect myself or my family. Not afraid to stand up to what ever comes along. Just afraid that one day, I really may have to.
 
I think that most situations can be avioded. The situations that cannot be geographicly avioded (like being out of your house at 2am without a good reason) can usually be avioded if you keep your eyes out for warning signs and stay clear when you do notice them. All the other times I have been in iffy situations, I was able to cool everyone back down to rational thought.

Then agian, all my confrontations have been with drunks, and not with muggers or gangs.
 
Really? Let's see the law. We don't post urban legends about the law here in Strategies and Tactics. I want to see the law that allows you to shoot someone for vandalizing your car while it is parked on the street or in a public parking area.

Jeff

Will this do? Note, this law does not apply in daytime hours.


Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
 
I live in Texas too.

Please note the underlined and bold portions of this statute:


Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

You're right. This law does permit you to use deadly force to prevent certain crimes against property, but it does not do away with the concept of reasonableness. A prosecutor, judge, or jury may still put you away.
 
1. Shoot
2. No shoot
3. Shoot

1. A considerably larger man has grabbed me and has threatened to do grave and bodily harm. Your assumption that it takes quite a beating before it's fatal is wrong. IIRC a boy in Minneapolis last year was killed with a single punch to the head. Houdini was also killed with a single punch to the stomach.

2. They've done nothing to harm myself nor am I in any danger. They could vandalize my car all they want, I'm calling the cops the second they start.

3. My friend just got beat into a "bloody heap". I would have shot them during that, they're a "loved one" and I wouldn't have known whether or not they were going to kill him. But let's say it progressed so far that they're now comming after me. They're likely going to stop me from escaping and finishing us both off.
 
I don't believe that law gives you the legal right to shoot someone for vandalizing your car. Look at what the law says:

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Note that I highlighted the word and. The key to what's justified is what section 9.41 says. Note that it doesn't say:

1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; or

Which would mean that the provisions of Section 9.41 apply or any of the other provisions in 9.42. The key is the word and. I don't know what 9.41 says, but I would bet it's the usual stuff about in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm.

I hardly think the law gives you Carte Blanche to shoot someone for vandalizing your car unless a few other factors are present.

Jeff
 
ShooterMcGavin said:
In other words, what is the most basic and minimum thing that would make you resort to your gun?

A fear that myself, or another innocent person was going to suffer great bodily harm or death as a result of an attack by a violent criminal.
 
I would draw my weapon if somebody attempted to use a weapon against me, be it a bat, a knife, metal knuckles, et cetera.
I have seen what metal knuckles will do to a person several times in my life, and there is no way I would allow myself to be hit with them without first doing everything I could to stop it, even using lethal force.

I am not a small guy, but I by no means big. I am 5'8" and 190 pounds. I have to say that if a sizeable group of people were about to jump me, I would draw my weapon.
 
HTML:
In fact, I talked myself out of carrying a firearm for a couple years due to this fact

Dito. for my own reasons.

I think your asking yourself good questions. There are alot of gey areas.
Its good to ask yourself what you would do. You also have to consider the consequences.maybe you would decide carrying isn't a good idea for you.

CCW isn't a cure all. It can be worse in some situations. And IMO the law isn't what scares me, Its the jury and the judge that scares me. Are they going to see it the way I did? There are certain situations where i'll take my chances with going to jail.

# 1 if a Big tough guy grabs you, you have bigger problems then is is legal to shoot him. If you give him your wallet, do you give him your gun?
If you pull your gun does he take it from you and now very angry?

#2 no if your answer is yes I would have to shoot them. Maybe you shouldn't carry,

#3 if your friend is lying in a pool of blood. How would a jury see it?
Not sure that the law matters in this case. I think your going do what's in your heart regardless. I hope I would.
IMO fighting these guys isn't an option when you have a gun on you. If you lose, the gun is theirs and you already saw what they are capable of.
 
I just had this conversation with a buddy. I call it "Big Balls Syndrome". It seems that so many of us suddenly will go places and do things we never would if we didn't have a firearm on us.

That's interesting.

I find that for me it did the exact opposite. I am much more cautious about where I go and the situations I get in because now I have that metal thing under my shirt. And it's kept me out of other places as well. I don't go to bars now at all since I can't carry it with me so overall I'm probably living a healthier life just from carrying a firearm.

I don't drink when I'm out any more, even at a restaurant. Not that I did much before but I have been known to have a glass of wine or 2 at dinner then hop in the car. Not now, I stay home if I want to drink. So I'm less likely to be in an alcohol related car accident because of having a firearm.

I've probably added years to my life just by carrying, even if the thing never clears leather.

I cherish the right to have it, but don't ever want to use it.
 
The key is the word and. I don't know what 9.41 says, but I would bet it's the usual stuff about in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm.

I looked it up. Surpisingly, it isn't about the usual stuff. It's more about property.

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.002.00.000009.00.htm#9.41.00

§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in
lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful
interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible,
movable property by another is justified in using force against the
other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force
is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the
property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit
after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no
claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using
force, threat, or fraud against the actor.


However, I think this snippet from an opinion issued by the Texas AG should be kept in mind: The degree of force which is reasonably necessary will vary from situation to situation and will involve issues of fact
 
Open Carry

Where I live, OC is a no-go. That's too bad. OC is presenting your gun afterall.

Don't mean to hijack the thread, but...

At what point, in a state like Florida, could I lift my shirt and *show* a gun? Say I'm being stalked by a group of wolfes. It's a dark parking lot. They ARE following me. I'm in fear. Could I, even though they are say 20 yards away, show my gun? How about put it in my hand?

And to answer your questions, I think: 1) Shoot, 2) No way, unless they rush me (gotta love no duty to retreat here in FL), 3) If fight is over? NO. If friend on the ground getting beaten up? I would at least draw my gun.
 
I think the "defense" of property assertion that I made has been adequately defended by others here. iwasn't referring specifically to cars, but more to home.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top