mljdeckard
Member
Also, "In the Gravest Exteme" by Massad F. Ayoob.
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?
Joshua: Your post provided exactly the kind of advice that I had been seeking. Thank you so much....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.
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
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....guy could be deaf...
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...
Probably not, but it is not unlikely that an innocent person will assume that he or she has encountered a potentially violent criminal actor.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.
I wouldn't.Should they continue their advance, I would bet my paycheck that you can justify the drawing of your weapon.
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.By what conceivable authority could any civilian lawfully "issue a command to stop" to someone who is minding his or her own business?
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.
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.
Same thing.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.
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."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.
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.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,...
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.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.
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.If you intended that the scenario include other aspects of the person's behavior, that was not clear to me.
Under cross examination, you will be limited to "yes" or "no."
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'll cross the street or change direction. If it then becomes clear that I am being pursued, I'll react accordingly.
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?
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....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.