Threshold for drawing a handgun

[mljdeckard]

Also, "In the Gravest Exteme" by Massad F. Ayoob.

 

[Straight Shooter]

+1 on Ayoob's book. There is also a DVD on the topic called "Judicious Use Of Deadly Force" which expands on the book.

Also check out:
The Farnam Method of Defensive Handgunning, Second Edition

 

[Kleanbore]

In the specific scenario I mentioned, where someone refuses my command not to approach closer, and if the context is threatening (e.g. the BG had stepped out of the shadows and followed me and kept on coming despite commands not to do so), would it be correct to say it would be reasonable to draw but not yet to point the gun at the BG?

Probably not. Ask yourself this: why do you think he is a "BG"; what gives you, or anyone else, the right to "command" anyone else to not proceed in a direction in which he may legally proceed?

Does the "BG", as you call him, have the ability to harm you? Has he placed you in immediate jeopardy? Is it immediately necessary for you to draw to protect yourself? Did you have any other means of avoiding harm? Will you be able to present evidence after the fact that will convince others that you had reason to believe that displaying your weapon was necessary?

 

[Crusader103]

I apologize if I have overlooked it being pointed out, but I haven't seen anybody post that there is indeed a logical step that can, and often does, occur between doing nothing and drawing your weapon on an apparent opponent.

The step is vitally important as it allows you to issue commands, determine the motivation of your apparent attacker, and be able to articulate a valid reason to law enforcement and courts should you ultimately be forced to draw your weapon, whether you fire or not.

The step is logical but often overlooked. It is simply the movement of your hand to your weapon, without actually drawing it from the holster.

Let's look at this scenario, which has been played out many times over. An unknown person starts approaching you. Maybe they want directions, maybe they want money, and maybe they want to rob you at knifepoint. It doesn't matter, your initial response is the same. You issue a command to stop when they are well outside of your personal response space. If they continue you can begin to articulate a valid safety concern. Issuing another command, in an even firmer voice, you step back with one foot in a bladed stance. This is a universal sign of defense. Should the person continue you can now very much articulate a valid concern for your safety. The person has ignored verbal and non-verbal commands that would be apparent to anyone (especially a juror) that you do not want to be approached and are concerned for your safety.

It is during this second command that your hand moves to your sidearm, but not yet drawing it. This is justifiable in that you are obviously concerned for your safety but you have not become the party who elevates the act of aggression. If you put your hand on your weapon, ready to draw, but not yet drawing, it is very difficult to justify a charge of "brandishing." Even should you be charged, it is very easy to show that you were actually exercising restraint. That is what a jury needs to hear and a prosecutor knows that. The charge would likely never make it to trial.

Ok, let's assume that the opponent ignores multiple commands and your non-verbal action of readying yourself for defense by putting your hand on your weapon. If that person continues do you think you could articulate that the person was bent on doing you serious physical harm? Of course! No innocent party is going to continue to advance on a person who has issued commands and made it abundantly clear that they are taking a defensive position, weapon ready to be drawn. Should they continue their advance, I would bet my paycheck that you can justify the drawing of your weapon.

So when do you fire? Well, I'll try not to be vague. If your attacker continues, with your having shown restraint, they are now willingly entering a fight where a firearm is present. Do you think that any reasonable person would believe that they were only going to punch you and walk away? Not unless they had a death wish. Remember, they likely do not know you and cannot assume that you will exercise further restraint and not shoot them. That means they have determined in their mind that they are not going to let you shoot them. The only way they can do that is through an absolutely viscious attack and/or the belief that they will gain control of your weapon, both justifiable reasons for deadly force.

I am not saying that you should be quick to use deadly force against an attacker whom you are not absolutely certain is armed. If you read carefully I am saying anything but that. Each step of the way you are building a case that you were left with no other alternative. To clarify, you are also making movements away from the attacker, putting obstacles between you, etc. This all becomes the crux of your case.

For those that would say don't go for the weapon unless you are going to shoot. Nonsense! Someone bent only upon hitting you should be given the opportunity to back down. Conversely, if they don't back down you can reasonably justify that they meant you some serious harm, knowing you were armed but not caring.

Considering the tactic, you have a huge advantage in that your hand is already on your weapon. Remember, that 21 foot rule is based on recognizing a threat, reacting, drawing, and getting on target. You are well over half way there in obtaining the proper grip on your weapon. A person can be much closer, even at contact distance, and you would still be able to draw with your weapon side turned away from them before they can stop you. Until that moment, you have neither drawn your weapon prematurely and incurred legal culpability nor placed yourself in a position of disadvantage.

In short, don't forget that all important step that comes between the handgun being concealed and the handgun being in their face. The simple movement of your hand to grasp the weapon is a very defining moment in your ability to articulate the necessary use of force.

 

[David904]

I've drawn on three separate occasions. And each time, I had come to the conclusion that my life was in the balance; and if I did not embrace my inner viking (immediately), I was going to die.

I'm no badass. I wasn't working in an arms-bearing profession. I was running a medium-sized professional cleaning company - which, by necessity had me traveling through some scary areas at night.

I very fortunately never had to pull the trigger. And any verbal interaction on my end most assuredly was more reminiscent of Pee Wee Herman than Clint Eastwood. And after all was said and done, I really needed to pee. That, and shake for a good 15 minutes while the adrenaline dump wore off.

When I drew, I just knew that it was the proverbial "go time." I didn't draw my gun as a trump card to drive off the bad guys. I drew because I thought I was well and truly deleted -- <Sam>. Fortunately they decided that pursuing the altercation further was likely to be deleterious to their health, so they broke it off.

Those three instances evolved VERY quickly. And to be brutally honest, I partly blame myself. My awareness wasn't where it should have been on two of them (embarrassingly enough, it was the last two that I was in "condition white"). Had I been paying more attention, I probably would have been able to avoid the altercations altogether.

Simply put... Keep your wits about you. Retreat if you can, but consider this: Where are you retreating to? By fleeing, are you headed to a more compromising scenario such as a yard with a hostile dog or owner who might take you for a prowler? People do and go to strange places when they are trying to escape and or evade. If you think you are going to die or receive grievous bodily harm, then defend yourself and commit to it. If the situation changes quickly enough, though, everyone can end up going home without extra holes in them. Commit to using whatever level of force you have to do to live, but don't be so committed that should the opportunity present itself you preclude the option of mercy.

 

[Jframe.38]

+1 on Massad Ayoob's book, In the Gravest Extreme. I also urge you to read The Concealed Handgun Manual:
How to Choose, Carry, and Shoot a Gun in Self Defense by Chris Bird which is specifically written with Texas law in mind. I would also thoroughly review the course material from your CHL class.

I am a fellow Texas CHL. My opinion based on the CHL classes that I've attended are that to draw you need the same level of justification that you do to shoot. In other words, you need to be able to specifically be able to illustrate how that person had the:
1 Ability/Capability to do you harm
2 That he had the opportunity to do you harm and
3 that he had the intent / you were in actual jeopardy of loosing life limb or eyesight due to his actions

Remember that when you draw down and or shoot you have just committed a felony aggravated assault, unless you have justification. If he dies you have committed a murder, unless you have justification. You need to prove that you had justification. When the police investigate the bottom line is someone committed a violent felony. Either you committed it because you had no justification, or they committed the violent felony or were about to commit a violent felony against your person giving you justification. It is up to you to prove that your opponent had the 1) ability/capability, 2) the opportunity and 3) the intent that caused you to be in bona fide jeopardy of loosing your life, limb or eyesight.

 

[Jframe.38]

A few good tactics if you suspect something is about to happen to you, but that fall well short of drawing down on someone:

1) create distance, preferrably by leaving the situatin entirely by walking or running away. If you can not run or walk away try to creat as much distance as possible. This will dramatically increase you chances of survival. (it minimizes the threat from contact weapons, and gives you better survivability). If worse comes to worse put your non-weapon hand up in the universal stop sign. This will give you at least enough distance to draw your weapon, if you need to.
2) Shorten your OODA loop - I suggest that you very non-threateningly put your hand in your pocket (or gun purse) and get prepared to draw while keeping your firearm completely concealed. This will dramatically slow your OODA (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) This is why pocket carry and purse carry (with a purpose made gun purse) are such great carry options.
3) Use Verbal Judo - a substantial part of the Texas CHL course is dedicated to Verbal Judo. Try to safely de-escalate the situation. If all else fails, remember the magical word STOP.
4) Escalate your Cooper Color code and get ready to defend yourself

All of these items should have been covered Ad Nauseum by your instructor. If they were not, I'd invest the time and money to a) read books like Massad Ayoob's book, In the Gravest Extreme and The Concealed Handgun Manual by Chris Bird or b) hire an actual quality CHL instructor privately and revisit what should have been taught the first time around. I wouldn't carry until I thoroughly undrstand those topics. I would also read many newspaper article on and get familiar with actual CHL cases and their legal aftermath in Texas and in your hometown.

 

[Jframe.38]

Duns:

Remember that one of the first justifiable homicides by a CHL was in Dallas, when a large man pummeled a CHL inside of a high end sports car that he was test driving. He was no-billed because of a) disparity of force and b) because their is case law in Texas stating that closed fist strikes, elbows, knees and kicks to the head and spinal column are lethal force, as people have died from them.
I would be very careful with this one. It is easy to prove if a large trained boxer is putting his weight behind his punches and you are loosing the ability to defend yourself. If it is someone your same size or smaller it would be hard to prove.
It all comes down to the ability/capability, opportunity and intent that your attacker exibited at the snapshot in time when you took action.

 

[Sam1911]

[Moderator Hat On]Guys, you all are supposed to understand that we don't use expletives here, period. Doesn't matter if you "bleep" them out with asterisks, or if you type them out and let the language filter screen them -- find another word. I understand that you're expressing what a bad person would say in a bad situation, but just don't do it.

Normally doing this gets you an "infraction" point which could lead to a loss of posting privileges. In this case, the use was understandable (though still not acceptable), so I'm simply deleting it from each post instead of issuing infractions. BUT, from now on DON'T do it.[/Moderator Hat Off]

 

[duns]

...The step is logical but often overlooked. It is simply the movement of your hand to your weapon, without actually drawing it from the holster.

...

In short, don't forget that all important step that comes between the handgun being concealed and the handgun being in their face. The simple movement of your hand to grasp the weapon is a very defining moment in your ability to articulate the necessary use of force.

Joshua: Your post provided exactly the kind of advice that I had been seeking. Thank you so much.

 

[duns]

jframe.38: Thanks for the above three posts all full of good advice. I have ordered the two books recommended. Your suggestion to revisit strategy with a good CHL instructor is a good one. Strategy was covered in my CHL class but it was only one topic out of many in the 10 hour class so necessarily covered rather quickly. I will seek out a more in-depth class.

 

[shockwave]

While such things are never absolute, it flies in the face of logic (and common belief) that your aggressor is going to be yelling, "DROP THE GUN," or "LEAVE ME ALONE!," or especially, "CALL 911!" If other witnesses remember you yelling that

Yes, and this occurred to me later so let me clarify the point. We saw an excellent illustration of what you're talking about in the thread about the guy accosted at the gas station on his way home from an IDPA match. There, witnesses were all around him, and he did shout at the aggressor to "back off!" etc. This falls under scene management and if the intent is to identify yourself as the defender then sure, no harm and no foul and probably wise strategy to do so.

My comment about "just draw" was directly solely to the point that verbal commands to the aggressor (whether he's aggressive or not) do not lead toward justification of drawing per se. As mentioned by others, guy could be deaf, guy could be drunk, or the guy simply has no intention of following some stranger's barked orders. Of course you still might say the sort of things you'd say whether you're armed or not. Sorry if I was unclear on that.

 

[duns]

...guy could be deaf...

Joshua Scott in post #54 above gives a good description of how to use body language as well as verbal language to signal your alarm to a potential aggressor.

 

[Averageman]

Minding my own business, just at the wrong place at the wrong time and,...
So if I feel threatened and place one hand on my CC (not drawn) and the other arm out straight with palm flat and tell them to stop and they continue to advance in a threatening manner i.e. swinging arms, cussing, verbal threats, racial language... seems reasonable to me, seems like that would work nearly anywhere in Texas.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by jscott: An unknown person starts approaching you. Maybe they want directions, maybe they want money, and maybe they want to rob you at knifepoint. It doesn't matter, your initial response is the same. You issue a command to stop when they are well outside of your personal response space. If they continue...

... or maybe he or she is on the way to the bank or a Starbucks store, or to a conference with a client who has been accused of having committed a crime.

What's unlawful about said "approach"?

By what conceivable authority could any civilian lawfully "issue a command to stop" to someone who is minding his or her own business?

No innocent party is going to continue to advance on a person who has issued commands and made it abundantly clear that they are taking a defensive position, weapon ready to be drawn.

Probably not, but it is not unlikely that an innocent person will assume that he or she has encountered a potentially violent criminal actor.

A wise one would no doubt avoid you, but you cannot rely on the assumption that he or she is not preoccupied with other thoughts.

Should they continue their advance, I would bet my paycheck that you can justify the drawing of your weapon.

I wouldn't.

Not only that, I would not bet anything against the possibility that your drawing would provide a strong basis for the justification of the use of deadly force by that person against you. The person is proceeding lawfully and is in a place in which he or she has the right to be. You have attempted to interfere with his or her rights. By drawing, you have provided him or her with indisputable reason to believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. You have clearly shown that you have the ability and the opportunity to greatly harm him or her, and you have given him or her very strong reason to believe that he or she is in jeopardy. At that point, he or she will likely see no alternative to the use of deadly force.

You and he or she both had the opportunity to avoid conflict until you drew the gun. At that point, however, the die is cast.

Of course, the situation might be somehow diffused before you are harmed by the "unknown person" or by a peace officer, but you could easily still end up on the losing end.

You know that you are wearing that halo that no one else can see, but that won't help much when it comes to the determination of who was in the right.

Not for me. I'll cross the street or change direction. If it then becomes clear that I am being pursued, I'll react accordingly.

With a gun? No, not at first. First, with words and gestures, Then, if need be, with oleo capsicum. If for some reason that doesn't work, and I cannot otherwise avoid an imminent threat (A, O, J)....

 

[duns]

By what conceivable authority could any civilian lawfully "issue a command to stop" to someone who is minding his or her own business?

Here and in the rest of your post, you are discussing a different scenario to that which was under discussion by me and other posters. You are talking about "to someone who is minding his or her own business". We were talking about the kinds of scenario in which one has good reason to feel threatened. "STOP" and other verbal judo phrases, coupled with body language, are a way of signaling one's alarm. There is nothing unlawful about it in the context we were discussing, indeed it is a prudent and responsible action.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by duns: Here and in the rest of your post, you are discussing a different scenario to that which was under discussion by me and other posters. You are talking about "to someone who is minding his or her own business". We were talking about the kinds of scenario in which one has good reason to feel threatened.

Here is what you posted:

Is it enough that someone is approaching me and refuses commands (1) to explain what they want and (2) not to come any closer ...
The scenario that most concerns me is when someone approaches me on the street, no weapon evident, no threats made, but refuses to stay back when commanded to do so.

So---no threats made, no weapon evident. What "good reason" would you have to "feel threatened"? Would you be able to persuade other reasonable people (responding officers, investigators, the charging authority, jurors) that a reasonable person would " feel threatened" because someone approaching him on the street did not comply with unlawful "commands" that he had no authority to enforce?

Check your criminal code. You will find that display of your weapon does not constitute deadly force per se, and that it may be justified when force is justified in self defense That's not true in most jurisdictions, by the way--one must be faced with imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, in most places.

You will also find that force is justified only when it is immediately necessary to protect one's self against another's use or attempted use of unlawful force, and that the use of force is not justified in response to verbal provocation alone. If verbal provocation won't cut it, what makes you think that the mere direction of a person's lawful travel would justify the use of force in self defense?

Here's what jscott posted:

An unknown person starts approaching you. Maybe they want directions, maybe they want money, and maybe they want to rob you at knifepoint. It doesn't matter, your initial response is the same. You issue a command to stop when they are well outside of your personal response space.

Same thing.

You are going to have to be able to persuasively articulate the reasons that you believed that it was immediately necessary to defend yourself against the unlawful use of force against you, and hope that your argument prevails against the testimony of the other party. Under cross examination, you will be limited to "yes" or "no."

If someone approaches you on the street, and you do not have a gun, would you command him to stay back? Why? Doesn't it happen all the time?

"STOP" and other verbal judo phrases, coupled with body language, are a way of signaling one's alarm. There is nothing unlawful about it in the context we were discussing, indeed it is a prudent and responsible action.

I would not characterize saying "stop"to someone approaching me on the street, who has made no threats, as prudent behavior at all, unless of course my attempts to evade and avoid have failed and his subsequent actions have clearly indicated that I am in fact the target of potential aggression.

This is worth reading in its entirety and saving for later reference. Consultation with an experienced criminal trial attorney in your area would also be worthwhile.

http://www.useofforce.us/

 

[Sam1911]

Kleanbore, you are making some sound points, but duns is right. Your scenario is slightly (but substantively) different.

As I said before, you aren't acting as someone with lawful authority to give orders. You are simply expressing your alarm -- giving the other person, who is obviously acting towards you in a way that you find to be decidedly outside of normal behavior, the benefit of a clear, unmistakable warning that they have (intentionally or not) alarmed you and that you are about to act to defend yourself.

You don't run down the street shouting challenges at everyone you meet. This is very nearly "last ditch" stuff. You've tried to break contact. You've tried to create space and to keep that person from closing with you -- but it hasn't worked. They are obviously intent on violating your personal space for some reason, and your "spidey sense" is telling you that their intents are unlawful.

Further, you are neither ordering them to submit to your authority (like a LEO beginning an arrest) nor are you verbally abusing them ("What you lookin' at!?!"). You are shouting a clear warning message that gives them that last opportunity to prevent violent action against them.

Now, you can't shoot without having sufficient cause to justify a homicide. You can't draw your weapon without sufficient reason to justify an assault. But your shouted warning and clear visual message in assuming a defensive posture is little more than "rude" if you are somehow mistaken. (In most cases, and depending on exactly what you say. Some jurisdictions do recognize a crime in making "terroristic threats.") It sucks to be rude, but the threshold for risking rudeness is substantially lower than for committing a possible felony by drawing and/or shooting.

 

[duns]

Kleanbore: Obviously I'm not going to be shouting commands at someone who just crosses my path in the street. The verbal judo and associated body language would come into play only when there is good reason to feel under threat. As I said in my previous post, you are changing the scenario in order to be able to criticize the proposed strategy, i.e. you appear to be using a "strawman" line of argument.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Sam1911: You've tried to break contact. You've tried to create space and to keep that person from closing with you -- but it hasn't worked. They are obviously intent on violating your personal space for some reason,...

Yes, and as I've said, after you have tried to break contact and create space, and after it is objectively clear that you are the target of likely threat, you do need to take action. However, in the scenario initially described, a command was given to someone merely approaching on the street. I saw no mention of an attempt at avoidance or evasion, or of any action that would help substantiate a reason for concern.

Of course, the particular circumstances will play into this. You cannot keep someone going the other way on a sidewalk from "violating your personal space" except by taking action to move your personal space from his direction of travel. On the other hand, you do have cause to keep someone heading in your direction (and with no other likely objective) on a remote portion of an empty parking lot from getting too close.

Under the latter circumstance, "stand your ground" laws and laws permitting the defensive display of a weapon would be helpful. Where I live we have neither.

Posted by duns: As I said in my previous post, you are changing the scenario in order to be able to criticize the proposed strategy, i.e. using a "strawman" line of argument.

Not intended. I responded to the scenario precisely as described ("someone approaches me on the street, no weapon evident, no threats made"). If you intended that the scenario include other aspects of the person's behavior, that was not clear to me.

I hope you find the link I provided useful.

Generally speaking, I believe that one should conduct himself the same way whether he is carrying a gun or not.

 

[nitetrane98]

Kind of a good example on simply fearing for your life and having reasonable justification is shown in the Ottawa Hills LEO thread/video. The LEO said he feared for his life, the jury said, "WHAT? WHY?", he's looking at 11 years now.

As far as somebody walking up and busting your nose, you can't shoot him for doing that, you could draw and shoot him to prevent him from doing it again. The reason why you can't get any hard and fast answers to your question is the threshold of reasonableness, or in other words, it all depends.

 

[duns]

If you intended that the scenario include other aspects of the person's behavior, that was not clear to me.

I apologize for my lack of clarity. Thanks for the link -- I haven't read it in its entirety yet but will do so, it does look useful.

 

[Crusader103]

Under cross examination, you will be limited to "yes" or "no."

Not true. I would agree that on cross an attempt may be made to back you into a corner, but your testimony is never limited to a "yes" or "no." A response of, "That question cannot be answered with a simple 'yes' or 'no'" gives rise to a detailed response, for which you are always entitled.

What's unlawful about said "approach"?

By what conceivable authority could any civilian lawfully "issue a command to stop" to someone who is minding his or her own business?

Absolutely nothing.... and by no authority. But let's not confuse things here. You are making your wishes known. Any reasonable person would take heed and at a minimum, pause to determine why you are taking a verbal and non-verbal defensive posture. When that is ignored you are now building an articulable reason by which you justify feeling threatened. Here's the deal. Courts readily recognize the accepted norms of personal space and the reasonableness of feeling threatened when someone continues an advance into your personal space against your wishes. No, you do not have a lawful basis by which to command someone to stop. However, you are not prohibited from making such a demand either. Should someone continue into your personal space once your verbal and non-verbal communication has demonstrated the fact that you feel in fear, you are acting as a reasonable person to continue taking defensive measures.

A wise one would no doubt avoid you, but you cannot rely on the assumption that he or she is not preoccupied with other thoughts.

Understood. And you are right in saying that a "a wise one would no doubt avoid you." The courts recognize this as well and when they don't avoid you the courts also recognize your reasonable belief of being threatened. However, I cannot believe that even a preoccupied person would not respond to repeated commands and a defensive posture.

By drawing, you have provided him or her with indisputable reason to believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. You have clearly shown that you have the ability and the opportunity to greatly harm him or her, and you have given him or her very strong reason to believe that he or she is in jeopardy.

Absolutely. I want them to undisputably believe that they are in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm if they continue their unwanted advance. That's why I carry a gun. I want them to know that I have the ability and opportunity to greatly harm him or her, and believe that they are in jeopardy.

However, don't forget who is advancing on who. Don't forget who is disobeying commands to stay out of whose personal space. Don't forget who is placing obstacles in between themselves and the aggressor.

You and he or she both had the opportunity to avoid conflict until you drew the gun. At that point, however, the die is cast.

Correct, and I have taken every opportunity to do so. They, however, apparently did not.

You know that you are wearing that halo that no one else can see, but that won't help much when it comes to the determination of who was in the right.

True, only you know what you are truly thinking. However, what will help is your repeated commands, your posture, your drawing attention for witnesses, your placing your hand on your weapon without yet drawing, your actions at getting away from them, and their actions/behavior in their advance. With that information, a valid conclusion can be reached in determining whose actions were reasonable and what their logical thought process was.

I'll cross the street or change direction. If it then becomes clear that I am being pursued, I'll react accordingly.

Good choice, and I don't think anybody suggested that you should not. Yet one more articulable reason as to why you felt threatened if they continue, against your commands.

So---no threats made, no weapon evident. What "good reason" would you have to "feel threatened"? Would you be able to persuade other reasonable people (responding officers, investigators, the charging authority, jurors) that a reasonable person would " feel threatened" because someone approaching him on the street did not comply with unlawful "commands" that he had no authority to enforce?

Would I be able to persuade other reasonable people? - Absolutely.

Someone advancing on you is an articulable reason to feel threatened. Their advance after making your wishes known is even more articulable. Your taking a defensive posture and them still continuing is even more articulable. Everything you do becomes an articulable action that justifies your feeling threatened.

Kleanbore, you seem to be hung up on the "lawful commands" portion of a defensive posture. It is true that you cannot go around ordering people to do what you want them to do for the heck of it. Nonetheless, it is very reasonable that you would issue a caution, warning, or verbal command to someone to stop their uninvited advance. You have every right to do so and to issue such a command is lawful.

Most states have a version of assault (sometimes in the disorderly conduct law) which states in part, "By words or conduct creates a risk of assault." It is this very scenario of which we speak that such laws address. A person does not have to be physically assaulted before it becomes reasonable for them to assert a defensive posture. You can articulate that the "words or conduct" of the person have forced your hand.

While you can argue that a subject is not under a legal requirement to heed your commands, you cannot argue that to continue an advance against the wishes of said defender would not cause them to act out of a reasonable fear.

If you read my original response in post #54 you will see that every effort is made to avoid the use of force, but it is the actions of the advancing party that have led you to reasonably believe that you are indeed the one in jeopardy, forced to take action or suffer the consequences of not doing so.

 

[Kleanbore]

Post #73

Well stated.

I think you may be visualizing something different from what I initially inferred from the OP, however.

Someone "approaches me on the street, no threats made"...that was the scenario.

As described, as he is proceeding in a completely lawful manner on a public thoroughfare, he is not "advancing on me", and accordingly, I do not have an articulable reason to feel threatened*, he has no legal reason to heed my stated desire that he stop, though he may do so; if I do anything to make him believe that he is in jeapordy from me I may be charged with assault or more; and if I pull a gun he may well be justified in shooting me in self defense. And, of course, I face the additional risk of being shot by a policeman or an armed citizen.

Personally, I am a lot less confident than you in my ability to get through that one.

Change the interpretation slightly and your arguments hold convincingly, in my opinion. If he is coming toward me, not on a sidewalk that gives him two directions of travel from which to choose, but into the lane of the ATM, or toward my parked car, or across the street toward me after I have changed direction, etc., I have real reason for concern and I should be able to articulate that. Whether the evidence would support me is another matter.

So, under the latter description, he is advancing upon me, and step one is to say "stop" convincingly by word and by gesture. Subsequent steps can get more severe, depending upon whether I have a duty to, and the capability to, retreat.

...what will help is your repeated commands, your posture, your drawing attention for witnesses, your placing your hand on your weapon without yet drawing, your actions at getting away from them, and their actions/behavior in their advance. With that information, a valid conclusion can be reached in determining whose actions were reasonable and what their logical thought process was.

Good put. However, placing one's hand on the weapon may not be lawful in some jurisdictions outside of Arizona and Texas unless the actual use of the weapon is justified.

*My impression from duns' subsequent posts is that this description is not what he had in mind.​

 

[Crusader103]

Kleanbore, it appears that we are probably closer on thought than first expressed. Exactly the reason for these types of discussions.